Advanced Energy [R]evolution, The by Greenpeace Magyarország Egyesület

the advanced energy

[r]evolution A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK FOR HUNGARY

EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL

report 2nd edition 2011 hungary energy scenario

Greenpeace International, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) date November 2011

project manager & lead author Sven Teske, Greenpeace International

Greenpeace International Sven Teske

EREC Arthouros Zervos, Josche Muth

Greenpeace Hungary Barbara Stoll

partners

image THE INDIGENOUS NENETS PEOPLE IN RUSSIA MOVE EVERY 3 OR 4 DAYS SO THAT THEIR REINDEER DO NOT OVER GRAZE THE GROUND AND THEY DO NOT OVER FISH THE LAKES. THE YAMAL PENINSULA IS UNDER HEAVY THREAT FROM GLOBAL WARMING AS TEMPERATURES INCREASE AND RUSSIA’S ANCIENT PERMAFROST MELTS.

“will we look into the eyes of our children and confess

that we had the opportunity, but lacked the courage? that we had the technology, but lacked the vision?”

research & co-authors DLR, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment, Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. Wolfram Krewitt (†), Dr. Thomas

Pregger, Dr. Sonja Simon, DLR, Institute of Vehicle Concepts, Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. Stephan Schmid. Ecofys BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Wina Graus, Eliane Blomen

editors Crispin Aubrey special thanks to Anikó Pogány, Márton Török, Péter Rohonyi, and several Hungarian experts

contact barbara.stoll@greenpeace.hu, sven.teske@greenpeace.org, erec@erec.org

design & layout onehemisphere, Sweden, www.onehemisphere.se

for further information about the global, regional and national scenarios please visit the Energy [R]evolution website: www.energyblueprint.info/ Published by Greenpeace International and EREC. (GPI reference number JN 330). Printed on 100% post consumer recycled chlorine-free paper. 3

foreword Job creation, alleviation of fuel poverty, better health, a cleaner environment and improved social welfare are just some of the benefits Hungary will experience by moving to a sustainable energy system. The challenges, as laid out in this report, demonstrate that the transition process requires a concerted effort within the next few years.

The Energy [R]evolution scenario demonstrates that little is not enough â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we need a revolutionary change in our energy system even in Hungary. Incremental changes will not get us to where we need to be; a transformation needs to start. However, revolutions on such scale have taken place many times in the past; and most of the time they strongly benefitted the welfare of the entire society as a consequence.

ANDASOL 1 SOLAR POWER STATION SUPPLIES UP TO 200,000 PEOPLE WITH CLIMATE-FRIENDLY ELECTRICITY AND SAVES ABOUT 149,000 TONNES OF CARBON DIOXIDE PER YEAR COMPARED WITH A MODERN COAL POWER PLANT.

The need to separate economic growth from energy demand enables Hungary to become more energy independent. Higher economic and environmental costs are avoided by using effective energy efficiency measures that are coupled with renewable energy. A new and sustainable energy system is necessary to meet the challenges of climate change. This report demonstrates that Hungary can create a green economy while building a new energy system.

Hungary can achieve the ambitious goals set within this report. But it requires sustained effort that calls for political commitment and participation by the society. The [R]evolution is built on technology and society coming together to create a sustainable energy system. Energy efficiency and renewable energy creates jobs while improving our environment. Greenpeace and EREC do a commendable job outlining how Hungary can begin the [R]evolution.

The report details how Hungary can transform its high reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power to a sustainable energy system thereby improving our everyday lives. Comfort in our homes can be increased by choosing the path that Greenpeace and EREC have laid out. The two organizations have produced an essential study demonstrating the potential of Hungary. This path is well-defined and needs to be taken.

Finally, I am personally honored to recommend this report to the reader. I have worked closely with the global Energy [R]evolution scenarios and their implications, in part under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as with the leader of the E[R] initiative, Sven Teske, and have had high respect for the work. I am therefore particularly grateful that E[R] now arrives to Hungary to help catalyze its transformation to a more sustainable energy future, in which there is no more fuel poverty, we all have more wealth left to spend on other things than our energy bills; in which Hungary gets (more) weaned from its painful dependency on natural gas and oil imports; there are more people employed locally and people enjoy less energy-related health impacts as well as better comfort, among many other co-benefits.

Diana Urge-Vorsatz, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY POLICIES (3CSEP) PROFESSOR, CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY (CEU) NOVEMBER 2011

ÂŠ GREENPEACE/MARKEL REDONDO

This path is not idealistic or abstract. Many of the solutions are available today, with new low carbon technologies within reach. The Energy [R]evolution demonstrates everyday policy solutions which, if effectively implemented, reduce CO2 emissions by 88% and prompt higher levels of employment. I am a strong advocate for the underlining solution: moving to a more efficient energy system creates opportunities and provides direct benefits for citizens. Energy efficiency labeling and strict consumption standards for appliances, buildings and vehicles reduce energy demand and translate into long-term savings for consumers. Renovating our building stock to high levels of energy efficiency saves money while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

contents foreword

introduction

executive summary

climate protection & energy policy

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

15 16 16 16

the kyoto protocol international energy policy renewable energy targets policy changes in the energy sector

the energy sector in hungary: current circumstances for a potential energy [r]evolution

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

19 19 20 21 21 22

introduction energy sources overview of the energy system in hungary key players current policy making key issues and challenges

nuclear power and climate protection

3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26

a solution to climate protection? nuclear power blocks solutions other technologies much cheaper and faster nuclear power in the energy [r]evolution scenario the dangers of nuclear power safety risks nuclear waste nuclear proliferation

the energy [r]evolution

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

29 29 30 32 33 34 34 38

key principles from principles to practice a sustainable development pathway new business model the new electricity grid hybrid systems smart grids the super grid

scenarios for a future energy supply

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

42 43 43

5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.5.6 5.5.7 5.5.8

scenario background price projections for fossil fuels and biomass cost of CO2 emissions cost projections for efficient fossil fuel generation and carbon capture and storage (CCS) cost projections for renewable energy technologies photovoltaics (pv) concentrating solar power wind power biomass geothermal ocean energy hydro power summary of renewable energy cost development

44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49

key results of the hungary energy [r]evolution scenario

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

55 58 59 60 61 62 62

development of energy demand to 2050 future costs of electricity generation future investment heating and cooling supply transport development of CO2 emissions primary energy consumption

employment

7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

64 65 66 66 66

future employment methodology overview employment factors manufacturing and technology export coal and gas

the silent revolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; past and current market developments

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

69 72 74 75

power plant markets in the us, europe and china country analysis: hungary the global renewable energy market employment in global renewable energy

energy resources and security of supply

9.1 9.1.1 9.1.2 9.2 9.2.1 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5.1 9.5.2 9.5.3

77 77 77 77 78 79 79 88 94 94 94

oil the reserves chaos non-conventional oil reserves gas shale gas coal nuclear renewable energy the global potential for sustainable biomass assessment of biomass potential studies potential of energy crops

10 energy technologies 10.1 fossil fuel technologies 10.2 nuclear technologies 10.3 renewable energy technologies 10.3.1 solar power (photovoltaics) 10.3.2 concentrating solar power (CSP) 10.3.3 solar thermal collectors 10.3.4 wind power 10.3.5 biomass energy 10.3.6 biofuels 10.3.7 geothermal energy 10.3.8 hydro power 10.3.9 ocean energy

96 97 99 100 100 101 102 102 103 104 105 105 106

11 policy recommendations in the EU context

107

12 glossary & appendix

112

12.1 glossary of commonly used terms and abbreviations 113 12.2 definition of sectors 113

list of figures

list of tables

figure 0.1

hungary: CO2 emissions under the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario table 1.1 energy [r]evolution: summary for policy makers table 4.1 power plant value chain table 5.1 development projections for fossil fuel prices, in 2008 table 5.2 assumptions on CO2 emissions cost development table 5.3 development of efficiency and investment costs for selected power plant technologies table 5.4 photovoltaics (pv) cost assumptions table 5.5 concentrating solar power (csp) cost assumptions table 5.6 wind power cost assumptions table 5.7 biomass cost assumptions table 5.8 geothermal cost assumptions table 5.9 ocean energy cost assumptions table 5.10 hydro power cost assumptions table 6.1 projection of renewable electricity generation capacity under both energy [r]evolution scenarios table 6.2 fuel cost savings and invesment costs under three scenarios table 7.1 electricity sector jobs in the three scenarios table 7.2 methodology to calculate employment table 7.3 local employment factors compared to OECD factors table 8.1 annual growth rates of global renewable energy table 8.2 top five countries table 8.3 employment in renewable electricity – selected countries and world estimates table 9.1 overview of fossil fuel reserves and resources table 9.2 assumptions on fossil fuel use in the three scenarios table 9.3 technical potential by renewable energy technology for 2020, 2030 and 2050 table 12.1 conversion factors – fossil fuels table 12.2 conversion factors – different energy units table 12.3-8 reference scenario table 12.9-14 energy [r]evolution scenario table 12.15-20 advanced energy [r]evolution scenario table 12.21 total new investment by technology table 12.22 employment by power station and calculation of local factors

figure 2.1 figure 2.2 figure 3.1 figure 4.1 figure 4.2 figure 4.3 figure 4.4 figure 5.1 figure 5.2 figure 6.1 figure 6.2 figure 6.3 figure 6.4 figure 6.5

figure 6.6 figure 6.7 figure 6.8 figure 6.9 figure 6.10 figure 6.11 figure 6.12 figure 7.1 figure 8.1 figure 8.2 figure 8.3 figure 8.4 figure 8.5 figure 8.6 figure 8.7 figure 8.8 figure 8.9 figure 8.10 figure 8.11 figure 9.1 figure 9.2 figure 9.3 figure 9.4 figure 10.1 figure 10.2 figure 10.3 figure 10.4 figure 10.5 figure 10.6 figure 10.7

development of primary energy consumption under the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario 13 share of domestic electricity consumption in 2010 20 electricity import & export in 2010 20 the nuclear fuel chain 27 energy loss, by centralised generation systems 30 a decentralised energy future 31 overview of the future power system with high penetration of renewables 35 the smart-grid vision for the enery [r]evolution 37 future development of renewable energy investment costs 49 expected development of electricity generation costs 49 projection of total final energy demand by sector under three scenarios 55 development of electricity demand by sector under both energy [r]evolution scenarios 56 development of heat demand by sector under both energy [r]evolution scenarios 56 development of electricity generation structure under three scenarios 57 development total electricity supply costs & development of specific electricity generation costs under three scenarios 58 investment shares - reference versus energy [r]evolution scenarios 59 change in cumulative power plant investment in both energy [r]evolution scenarios 59 renewable energy investment costs 60 development of heat supply structure under three scenarios 61 transport under three scenarios 61 development of CO2 emissions by sector under the both energy [r]evolution scenarios 62 development of primary energy consumption under three scenarios 62 jobs by technology under three scenarios 64 global power plant market 1970-2010 68 global power plant market 1970-2010, excl china 69 usa: annual power plant market 1970-2010 69 europe: annual power plant market 1970-2010 70 china: annual power plant market 1970-2010 70 power plant market shares 71 hungary: new build power plants - market shares 72 hungary: annual power plant market 1970-2010 72 historic developments of the global power plant market by technology 73 average annual growth rates of renewable energy capacity and biofuel production, 2005-2010 74 renewable power capacities, developing countries, eu and top six countries, 2010 75 energy resources of the world 88 ranges of potential for different biomass types 94 bio energy potential analysis from different authors 94 world wide energy crop potentials in different scenarios 95 photovoltaics technology 100 csp technologies: parabolic trough, central receiver/solar tower and parabolic dish 101 flat panel solar technology 102 wind turbine technology 103 biomass technology 103 geothermal technology 105 hydro technology 105

image NORTH HOYLE WIND FARM, UK’S FIRST WIND FARM IN THE IRISH SEA, WHICH WILL SUPPLY 50,000 HOMES WITH POWER.

table 0.1

13 17 32 43 44 44 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 57 60 64 65 66 74 74 75 78 79 89 113 113 114 115 116 117 117

list of maps map 5.1 map 5.2 map 9.1 map 9.2 map 9.3 map 9.4 map 9.5 map 9.6

CO2 emissions reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario results reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario oil reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario gas reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario coal reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario nuclear reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario solar reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario wind reference scenario and the advanced energy (r)evolution scenario

50 52 80 82 84 86 90 92 7

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

introduction

“FOR THE SAKE OF A SOUND ENVIRONMENT, POLITICAL STABILITY AND THRIVING ECONOMIES, NOW IS THE TIME TO COMMIT TO A TRULY SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE.”

image A WORKER ENTERS A TURBINE TOWER FOR MAINTENANCE AT DABANCHENG WIND FARM. CHINA’S BEST WIND RESOURCES ARE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE NATURAL BREACH IN TIANSHAN (TIAN MOUNTAIN).

As global temperatures have been steadily rising and icecaps on the Poles have been melting, it has become inevitable to come to know the notion of climate change, which is by no question one of the biggest problems of our world today. In the last two decades, we have seen horrible disasters, such as storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other devastating natural phenomena due to the rising of global temperatures, and it is very likely that such events will multiply in the future if the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere isn’t significantly reduced. In order to avoid the most dramatic consequences of global warming, it is essential that humanity makes all the necessary steps to try to stop, or at least slow down this otherwise irreversible process. According to the IPCC (2007) the global greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities have increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004 (most of which comes from energy supply, transport, and industry), and most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures is due to the increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations in the athmosphere. The most dangerous

anthropogenic GHG is CO2 whose emissions have grown by 80% between 1970 and 2004, and this increase is primarily due to the use of fossil fuels, which we do mainly to produce energy. At times like these, when we are running out of natural resources, when society is facing the biggest financial crisis yet, when our planet is completely exploited, and disastrous natural phenomena are happening every day, we have no choice but to completely change our current ways of producing energy and we need to find new ways to build up our economies and step on a truly sustainable pathway. This is why Greenpeace has created the second edition of the Energy [R]evolution for Hungary. With this analysis we would like to show that it is indeed possible to build up a green and sustainable, yet secure future. The scenario takes a deep plunge into what’s possible in terms of energy supply strategies for the future and how to develop a sustainable energy and climate policy. We would like to show the solution and a possible way to strengthen our economies, create jobs, while ensuring energy security and keeping emissions under manageable levels.

image WIND TURBINES AT THE NAN WIND FARM IN NAN’AO. GUANGDONG PROVINCE HAS ONE OF THE BEST WIND RESOURCES IN CHINA AND IS ALREADY HOME TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND FARMS.

energy policy

advanced energy [r]evolution for Hungary 2010

Energy policy has a widespread impact on society, politics and the economy as a whole. Access to sufficient energy is vital to making our economies work but at the same time, our demand for energy has become the main source of the greenhouse gas emissions that put our climate at risk. Something needs to change.

Greenpeace has published three global Energy [R]evolution scenarios since January 2007, each analysis deeper than the last. This is the second scenario specifically for Hungary, after publishing a detailed examination of how the grid network needs to be improved and adapted. The Energy [R]evolution not only includes the financial analysis and employment calculations in parallel with the basic projections, but we have also added a second, more ambitious Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario. This was considered vital because rapid improvements in climate science made it clear during 2009 that a global 50% reduction in energy related CO2 emissions by 2050 might not be enough to keep the global mean temperature rise below +2°C. An even greater reduction may be needed if runaway climate change is to be avoided.

At the same time, highly volatile fossil fuel prices are creating more and more uncertainty for the global economy, creating an indirect incentive for investing in renewable energy technologies, which are now booming. Access to energy is of strategic importance for every country in the world. Over the past few years oil prices have gone up and down like a rollercoaster, jumping to a record high in July 2008 of US$147.27 and then falling back again to US$33.87 in December. Security of energy supply is not only influenced by the cost of fuels, however, but by their long term physical availability. Renewable energy sources are not only the right choices because of the price stability they bring as opposed to fossil fuels but because they are indigenous and locally produced. Renewable energy technologies produce little or no greenhouse gases and rely on virtually inexhaustible natural elements for their ‘fuel’. Some of these technologies are already competitive. The wind power industry, for example, has continued its explosive growth in the face of a global recession and is a testament to the inherent attractiveness of renewable technology. In 2009, the global wind power market grew by an annual 41.5%. The renewable energy industry now employs around two million people worldwide and has become a major feature of national industrial development plans. In 2010, annual investments in renewable energy worldwide accounted for $207 billion. Meanwhile, the economics of renewables are expected to further improve as they develop technically, and as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise and as their saving of carbon dioxide emissions is given a monetary value. These cost comparisons, already favorable to renewables, don’t even account for the massive externalized costs of fossil fuels such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the small drop in fossil fuel emissions in the industrialized world as a result of the economic crisis, globally the level of energy related carbon dioxide continues to grow. This means that a recovered economy will result in increasing CO2 emissions once again, further contributing to the greenhouse gases which threaten our planet. A shift in energy policy is needed so that a growing economy and reduced CO2 emissions can go hand in hand. The Energy [R]evolution analysis shows how this is possible.

The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario has changed five parameters compared to the Basic version. These parameters are the following: the economic lifetime of coal power stations has been reduced from 40 to 20 years, the growth rate of renewables has taken the advanced projections of the renewable industry into account, the use of electric drives in the transport sector will take off ten years earlier, the expansion of smart grids will happen quicker, and last but not least, the expansion of fossil fuel based energy will stop after 2015. A drastic reduction in CO2 levels and a share of over 80% renewables in the world energy supply are both possible goals by 2050. Of course this will be a technical challenge, but the main obstacle is political. We need to kick start the Energy [R]evolution with long lasting reliable policy decisions within the next few years. It took more than a decade to make politicians aware of the climate crisis; we do not have another decade to agree on the changes needed in the energy sector. Greenpeace and the renewables industry present the Energy [R]evolution scenario as a practical but ambitious blueprint. For the sake of a sound environment, political stability and thriving economies, now is the time to commit to a truly secure and sustainable energy future – a future built on energy efficiency and renewable energy, economic development and the creation of millions of new jobs for the next generation.

Arthouros Zervos

Sven Teske

PRESIDENT

CLIMATE & ENERGY UNIT

EUROPEAN RENEWABLE

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL

ENERGY COUNCIL (EREC)

Barbara Stoll CLIMATE & ENERGY CAMPAIGN GREENPEACE HUNGARY NOVEMBER 2011

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

executive summary

“AT THE CORE OF THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION WILL BE A CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT ENERGY IS PRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED AND CONSUMED.”

image THE PS10 CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL POWER PLANT IN SEVILLA, SPAIN. THE 11 MEGAWATT SOLAR POWER TOWER PRODUCES ELECTRICITY WITH 624 LARGE MOVABLE MIRRORS CALLED HELIOSTATS. THE SOLAR RADIATION, MIRROR DESIGN PLANT IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING 23 GWH OF ELECTRICITY WHICH IS ENOUGH TO SUPPLY POWER TO A POPULATION OF 10,000.

The threat of climate change, caused by rising global temperatures, is the most significant environmental challenge facing the world at the beginning of the 21st century. It has major implications for the world’s social and economic stability, its natural resources and in particular, the way we produce our energy.

the five key principles behind this shift will be to: • Implement renewable solutions, especially through decentralised energy systems • Respect the natural limits of the environment • Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy sources

the energy [r]evolution The climate change imperative demands nothing short of an Energy [R]evolution, a transformation that has already started as renewable energy markets continue to grow. In the first global edition of the Energy [R]evolution, published in January 2007, we projected a global installed renewable capacity of 156 GW by 2010. At the end of 2009, 158 GW has been installed. More needs to be done, however. At the core of this revolution will be a change in the way that energy is produced, distributed and consumed.

• Create greater equity in the use of resources • Decouple economic growth from the consumption of fossil fuels Decentralised energy systems, where power and heat are produced close to the point of final use, will avoid the current waste of energy during conversion and distribution. Investments in ‘climate infrastructure’ such as smart interactive grids, as well as super grids to transport large quantities of offshore wind and concentrating solar power, are essential. Building up clusters of renewable micro grids, especially for people living in remote areas, will be a central tool in providing sustainable electricity to the almost two billion people around the world for whom access to electricity is presently denied.

image WELDER WORKING AT VESTAS WIND TURBINE FACTORY, CAMPBELLTOWN, SCOTLAND.

The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario follows the first series of Energy [R]evolution scenarios published between 2007-2009, increasing the emission reductions as needed according to latest climate science. While the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario is based on a global CO2 reduction target of minus 50% by 2050 (base year 1990) and a global per capita emission of around 1 tonne CO2 per year, the advanced aims for a 80% reduction target and a per capita of around 0.5 tonne CO2 per capita and year.

4. The electricity sector will be the pioneer of renewable energy utilisation. By 2050, around 78% of electricity will be produced from renewable sources. A capacity of 25,000 MW will produce 48 TWh/a renewable electricity in 2050. A significant share of the fluctuating power generation from wind and solar photovoltaic will be used to supply electricity to vehicle batteries and produce hydrogen as a secondary fuel in transport and industry. By using load management strategies, excess electricity generation will be reduced and more balancing power made available.

towards a renewable future

5. In the heat supply sector, the contribution of renewables will increase to 93% by 2050. Fossil fuels will be increasingly replaced by more efficient modern technologies, in particular biomass, solar collectors and geothermal. Geothermal heat pumps and will play a growing part in heat production.

Today, renewable energy sources account for 5% of Hungary’s primary energy demand. Biomass, which is mostly used in the heat sector, is the main source. The share of renewable energies for electricity generation is 4.5%, while their contribution to heat supply is around 9%, to a large extent accounted for by traditional uses such as collected firewood. About 80% of the primary energy supply today still comes from fossil fuels. Both Energy [R]evolution Scenarios describe development pathways which turn the present situation into a sustainable energy supply, with the advanced version achieving the urgently needed CO2 reduction target more than a decade earlier than the Basic scenario. The following summary shows the results of the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, which will be achieved through the following measures: 1. Exploitation of existing large energy efficiency potentials will ensure that primary energy demand decreases from the current 1,085 PJ/a (2010) to 796 PJ/a in 2050, compared to 1,288 PJ/a in the Reference scenario. This dramatic reduction is a crucial prerequisite for achieving a significant share of renewable energy sources in the overall energy supply system, compensating for the phasing out of nuclear energy and reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. 2. More electric drives are used in the transport sector and hydrogen produced by electrolysis from excess renewable electricity plays a much bigger role in the Advanced than in the Basic scenario. After 2020, the final energy share of electric vehicles on the road increases to 12% and by 2050 to 65%. More public transport systems also use electricity, as well as there being a greater shift in transporting freight from road to rail. 3. The increased use of combined heat and power generation (CHP) also improves the supply system’s energy conversion efficiency, increasingly using natural gas and biomass. In the long term, the decreasing demand for heat and the large potential for producing heat directly from renewable energy sources limit the further expansion of CHP.

6. In the transport sector the existing large efficiency potentials will be exploited by a modal shift from road to rail and by using much lighter and smaller vehicles. As biomass is mainly committed to stationary applications, the production of bio fuels is limited by the availability of sustainable raw materials. Electric vehicles, powered by renewable energy sources, will play an increasingly important role from 2020 onwards. 7. By 2050, 75% of primary energy demand will be covered by renewable energy sources. To achieve an economically attractive growth of renewable energy sources, a balanced and timely mobilisation of all technologies is of great importance. Such mobilisation depends on technical potentials, actual costs, cost reduction potentials and technical maturity. future costs The introduction of renewable technologies under the two Energy [R]evolution scenarios slightly increases the specific costs of electricity generation compared to the Reference scenario until 2030 (see Figure 6.5). This difference will be about 3 euro cent/kWh. However, after 2030, specific electricity generation costs under the Energy [R]evolution scenarios will become cheaper. This is due to better economics of scale and technological learning in the production of renewable power equipment. By 2040 the electricity generation costs under the Energy [R]evolution scenarios will become cheaper than in the Reference Scenario, which faces a large cost increase due to growing fuel prices. In 2050, the specific costs for one kWh add up to 11 euro cent in the Advanced scenario, 12 euro cent in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario and 15 euro cent in the Reference scenario.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

“The long term scenario has been developed further towards a complete phasing out of fossil fuels in the second half of this century.”

Under the Reference scenario, the unchecked growth in demand, the increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result in total electricity supply costs rising from today’s €3 billion per year to €13 billion in 2050. Figure 6.5 shows that the Energy [R]evolution scenarios not only comply with Europe’s CO2 reduction targets but also help to stabilise energy costs and relieve economic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiency and shifting energy supply to renewables result in long term costs for electricity supply that are 34% lower in the Advanced and 43% lower in the Energy [R]evolution scenario. The higher total costs in the Advanced compared to the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario result from a higher requirement for electricity due to the increasing electrification of the transport and heating sectors. Due to the increased electricity demand especially in the transport sector the overall total supply costs in the Advanced case are higher by €840 million in 2030 and €1,050 million in 2050 than in the Energy [R]evolution scenario. future investment It would require €58.6 billion investment for the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario to become reality – €18 billion higher than in the Reference scenario. Under the Reference version, only 26% of investments will go to renewable energy and cogeneration, while 18% goes to fossil fuels and 44% into nuclear power plants. Under the Advanced scenario, however, Hungary shifts about 73% of investment towards renewables; by 2030 the fossil fuel share of power sector investment would be focused mainly on combined heat and power and efficient gas-fired power plants. The average annual investment in the power sector under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario between 2011 and 2050 would be approximately €1.3 billion. Because renewable energy has no fuel costs, however, the fuel cost savings in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario reach a total of €37.5 billion, or €0.9 billion per year. The Advanced Energy [R]evolution has even higher fuel cost savings of €63 billion, or €1.6 billion per year. Under the Reference scenario, the average annual fuel costs are about four times higher than the additional investment requirements of the Advanced Energy [R]evolution. These renewable energy sources would then go on to produce electricity without any further fuel costs beyond 2050, while the costs for coal and gas will continue to be a burden on national economies.

future global employment Modelled energy sector jobs increase by 2015 under all scenarios. In 2010, there are 16,600 electricity sector jobs. These increase to 20,000 in the Reference scenario, 24,000 in the Energy [R]evolution scenario, and to 33,000 in the Advanced scenario. Figure 7.1 shows the increase in job numbers under both Energy [R]evolution scenarios and the Reference case for each technology up to 2030, with details given in Table 7.1. • In the Reference case, jobs grow by 23% by 2015, and then a further 27% by 2020, to reach 25,000. There is a slight reduction between 2020 and 2030, but jobs in 2030 are still 24,100, 45% higher than jobs in 2010. • In the [R]evolution scenario, jobs increase by 43% by 2015, to 24,000. There is a further 23% increase by 2020, to 27,500, and by 2030 jobs reach 34,000, more than double 2010 levels. • In the Advanced scenario, jobs nearly double by 2015, to 33,000, and then stay nearly constant to 2020. There is a reduction in jobs between 2020 and 2030, but 2030 jobs are still 29,000, 78% higher than jobs in 2010. • Biomass show particularly strong growth, accounting for between 38% and 45% of energy sector employment by 2030 in all three scenarios. Coal generation is phased out in all three scenarios. These calculations do not include the jobs associated with decommissioning nuclear power stations, or jobs in energy efficiency. These are both likely to be significant in the Energy [R]evolution and Advanced scenarios. 2000 MW of nuclear power is phased out in the two Energy [R]evolution scenarios, and there is a reduction in electricity generation of more than 30% relative to the Reference scenario.

image THOUSANDS OF FISH DIE AT THE DRY RIVER BED OF MANAQUIRI LAKE, 150 KILOMETERS FROM AMAZONAS STATE CAPITOL MANAUS, BRAZIL.

development of CO2 emissions

policy changes

While CO2 emissions in Hungary will decrease by 10% in the Reference scenario by 2050, under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario they will decrease from 58 million tonnes (t) in 2007 to 9 million t in 2050 (equal to a 88% emissions reduction compared to the 1990 level). Annual per capita emissions will drop from 5.8 t to 1 t. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasing demand, CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector. In the long run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewable electricity in vehicles will reduce emissions in the transport sector. With a share of 54% of total CO2 in 2050, the power sector will remain the largest source of emissions.

To make the Energy [R]evolution real and to avoid dangerous climate change, Greenpeace and EREC demand that the following policies and actions are implemented in the energy sector:

The Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario reduces energy related CO2 emissions with a delay of 10 to 15 years compared to the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, leading to 4.1 t per capita by 2030 and 2.1 t by 2050. By 2050, Hungary’s CO2 emissions are 74% under 1990 levels.

1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. 2. Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs of energy production through ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading. 3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles. 4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation. 5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators. 6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by effective feed-in tariff programmes. 7. Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to provide more environmental product information. 8. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

figure 0.1: development of primary energy consumption under the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario (‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

PJ/a 0

REF E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

•• •• •• •• •• ••

‘EFFICIENCY’ OCEAN ENERGY SOLAR IMPORT GEOTHERMAL SOLAR BIOMASS WIND HYDRO NATURAL GAS OIL COAL NUCLEAR

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

GLOBAL

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

POLICY CHANGES IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

image THE LOCAL ALASKAN TELEVISION STATION BROADCASTS A WARNING FOR HIGH TIDES AND EROSION ALONG THE SEASIDE DURING A 2006 OCTOBER STORM WHICH IMPACTS ON THE VILLAGE OF SHISHMAREF. © GP/ROBERT KNOTH

climate protection and energy policy

“never before has humanity been forced to grapple with such an immense environmental crisis.”

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations forum for established scientific opinion, the world’s temperature is expected to increase over the next hundred years by up to 6.4°C if no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is much faster than anything experienced so far in human history. The goal of climate policy should be to keep the global mean temperature rise to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. If there is more than a 2°C rise, damage to ecosystems and disruption to the climate system increases dramatically. We have very little time within which we can change our energy system to meet these targets. This means that global emissions will have to peak and start to decline by the end of the next decade at the latest. The reality of climate change can already be seen in disintegrating polar ice, thawing permafrost, rising sea levels and fatal heat waves. It is not only scientists that are witnessing these changes. From the Inuit in the far north to islanders near the equator, people are already struggling with impacts consistent with climate change. An average global warming of more than 2°C threatens millions of people with an increased risk of hunger, disease, flooding and water shortages. Never before has humanity been forced to grapple with such an immense environmental crisis. If we do not take urgent and immediate action to protect the climate, the damage could become irreversible. This can only happen through a rapid reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Below is a summary of some likely effects if we allow current trends to continue. Likely effects of small to moderate warming: • Sea level rise due to melting glaciers and the thermal expansion of the oceans as global temperature increases. Massive releases of greenhouse gases from melting permafrost and dying forests. • A greater risk of more extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and floods. Already the global incidence of drought has doubled over the past 30 years. • Severe regional impacts such as an increase in river flooding in Europe as well as coastal flooding, erosion and wetland loss. Low-lying areas in developing countries such as Bangladesh and South China are likely to be severely affected by flooding.

• Increased risk of species extinction and biodiversity loss. The greatest impacts will be on poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Andean South America as well as small islands least able to protect themselves from increasing droughts, rising sea levels, the spread of disease and a decline in agricultural production. longer term catastrophic effects Warming from rising emissions may trigger the irreversible meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, adding up to seven metres of global sea level rise over several centuries. New evidence shows that the rate of ice discharge from parts of the Antarctic means it is also at risk of meltdown. Slowing, shifting or shutting down of the Atlantic Gulf Stream current would have dramatic effects in Europe, and disrupt the global ocean circulation system. Large releases of methane from melting permafrost and from the oceans would lead to rapid increases of the gas in the atmosphere and consequent warming. 1.1 the kyoto protocol Recognising these threats, the signatories to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Protocol finally entered into force in early 2005 and its 193 member countries meet twice annually to negotiate further refinement and development of the agreement. Only one major industrialised nation, the United States, has not ratified Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol commits its signatories to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from their 1990 level by the target period of 2008-2012. This has in turn resulted in the adoption of a series of regional and national reduction targets. In the European Union, for instance, the commitment is to an overall reduction of 8%. In order to help reach this target, the EU also agreed a target to increase its proportion of renewable energy from 6% to 12% by 2010. At present, the 195 members of the UNFCCC are negotiating a new climate change agreement that should enable all countries to continue contributing to ambitious and fair emission reductions. Unfortunately the ambition to reach such an agreement in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 failed, and governments will continue negotiating in 2010 and possibly beyond to reach a new legally binding deal. Such an agreement will need to ensure that industrialised countries reduce their emissions on average by at least 40% by 2020, compared to their 1990 level. They will further need to provide funding of at least $140 billion a year to developing countries to enable them to adapt to climate change, protect their forests and achieve their part of the energy revolution. Developing countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15% to 30% compared to their projected growth by 2020.

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

Every day we damage our climate by using fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) for energy and transport. The resulting impacts are likely to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people, especially in the developing world, as well as ecosystems and species, over the coming decades. We therefore need to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This makes both environmental and economic sense.

• Severe threats to natural systems, including glaciers, coral reefs, mangroves, alpine ecosystems, boreal forests, tropical forests, prairie wetlands and native grasslands.

1 climate protection and energy policy |

The greenhouse effect is the process by which the atmosphere traps some of the sun’s energy, warming the earth and moderating our climate. A human-driven increase in ‘greenhouse gases’ has enhanced this effect, artificially raising global temperatures and disrupting our climate. These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (produced by burning fossil fuels and through deforestation), methane (released from agriculture, animals and landfill sites), and nitrous oxide (resulting from agricultural production plus a variety of industrial chemicals).

image CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFFSHORE WINDFARM AT MIDDELGRUNDEN NEAR COPENHAGEN, DENMARK.

1 climate protection and energy policy |

This new ‘fair and binding’ (FAB) deal will need to incorporate the Kyoto Protocol’s architecture. This relies fundamentally on legally binding emissions reduction obligations. To achieve these targets, carbon is turned into a commodity which can be traded. The aim is to encourage the most economically efficient emissions reductions, in turn leveraging the necessary investment in clean technology from the private sector to drive a revolution in energy supply.

SUMMARY

In recent years the wind and solar power industries have shown that it is possible to maintain a growth rate of 30 to 35% in the renewables sector. In conjunction with the European Photovoltaic Industry Association1, the European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association2 and the Global Wind Energy Council,3 the European Renewable Energy Council and Greenpeace have documented the development of those industries from 1990 onwards and outlined a prognosis for growth up to 2020 and 2040.

1.2 international energy policy At present, renewable energy generators have to compete with old nuclear and fossil fuel power stations which produce electricity at marginal cost because consumers and taxpayers have already paid the interest and depreciation on the original investment. Political action is needed to overcome these distortions and create a level playing field for renewable energy technologies to compete. At a time when governments around the world are in the process of liberalising their electricity markets, the increasing competitiveness of renewable energy should lead to higher demand. Without political support, however, renewable energy remains at a disadvantage, marginalised by distortions in the world’s electricity markets created by decades of massive financial, political and structural support to conventional technologies. Developing renewables will therefore require strong political and economic efforts, especially through laws that guarantee stable tariffs over a period of up to 20 years. Renewable energy will also contribute to sustainable economic growth, high quality jobs, technology development, global competitiveness and industrial and research leadership.

1.4 policy changes in the energy sector Greenpeace and the renewables industry have a clear agenda for the policy changes which need to be made to encourage a shift to renewable sources. The main demands are: 1. Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. 2. Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs of energy production through ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading. 3. Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles. 4. Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation. 5. Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators. 6. Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by effective feed-in tariff programmes. 7. Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to provide more environmental product information.

1.3 renewable energy targets In recent years, in order to reduce greenhouse emissions as well as increase energy security, a growing number of countries have established targets for renewable energy. These are either expressed in terms of installed capacity or as a percentage of energy consumption. These targets have served as important catalysts for increasing the share of renewable energy throughout the world. A time period of just a few years is not long enough in the electricity sector, however, where the investment horizon can be up to 40 years. Renewable energy targets therefore need to have short, medium and long term steps and must be legally binding in order to be effective. They should also be supported by incentive mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity generation. In order for the proportion of renewable energy to increase significantly, targets must be set in accordance with the local potential for each technology (wind, solar, biomass etc) and be complemented by policies that develop the skills and manufacturing bases to deliver the agreed quantity.

8. Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Conventional energy sources receive an estimated $250-300 billion4 in subsidies per year worldwide, resulting in heavily distorted markets. Subsidies artificially reduce the price of power, keep renewable energy out of the market place and prop up non-competitive technologies and fuels. Eliminating direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power would help move us towards a level playing field across the energy sector. Renewable energy would not need special provisions if markets factored in the cost of climate damage from greenhouse gas pollution. Subsidies to polluting technologies are perverse in that they are economically as well as environmentally detrimental. Removing subsidies from conventional electricity supply would not only save taxpayers’ money. It would also dramatically reduce the need for renewable energy support.

references 1 ‘SOLARGENERATION IV’, SEPTEMBER 2009. 2 ‘GLOBAL CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER OUTLOOK – WHY RENEWABLES ARE HOT! MAY, 2009.

3 ‘GLOBAL WIND ENERGY OUTLOOK 2008’, OCTOBER2008. 4 ‘WORLD ENERGY ASSESSMENT: ENERGY AND THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY’, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMM, 2000.

table 1.1: energy [r]evolution: summary for policy makers

mechanisms

WHO 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Climate • Peak global temperature rise well below 2°C • Reduce ghg emissions by 40% by 2020 (as compared to 1990) in developed countries • Reduce ghg emissions by 15 to 30% of projected growth by 2020 in developing countries • Achieve zero deforestation globally by 2020 • Agree a legally binding global climate deal as soon as possible

UNFCCC UNFCCC UNFCCC UNFCCC UNFCCC

SUMMARY

targets

POLICY

Energy USA • USA: binding target of at least 20% renewable energy in primary energy consumption by 2020 G8 • G8: min 20% renewable energy by 2020 G8 • No new construction permits for new coal power plants in Annex 1 countries by 2012 G8 • Priority access to the grid for renewables National Governments • Establish efficiency targets and strict standards for electric applications National Governments • Strict efficiency target for vehicles: 80g CO2/km by 2020 National Governments • Build regulations with mandatory renewable energy shares (e.g. solar collectors) National Governments • Co-generation law for industry and district heating support program Finance • Phase-out subsidies for fossil and nuclear fuels • Put in place a Climate Fund under the auspices of the UNFCCC • Provide at least 140 billion USD/year to the Climate Fund by 2020 • Ensure priority access to the fund for vulnerable countries and communities • Establish feed-in law for renewable power generation in Annex 1 countries • Establish feed-in law with funding from Annex 1 countries for dev. countries

G20 UNFCCC UNFCCC UNFCCC National Governments G8 + G77

emissions

transport

consumer

final energy

heating

power

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION RESULTS Renewables & Supply Global Renewable Power Generation • Shares (max = adv. ER - Min = ER): 30% / 50% / 75% / over 90% • Implementation of Smart Grids (Policy/Planning/Construction) • Smart Grids interconnection to Super Grids (Policy/Planning/Construction) • Renewables cost competitive (max = worst case - min = best case) • Phase out of coal power plants in OECD countries • Phase out of nuclear power plants in OECD countries Global Renewable Heat supply shares • Shares (max = adv. ER - Min = ER): 30% / 50% / 75% / over 90% • Implementation of district heating (Policy/Planning/Construction) • Renewables cost competive (max = worst case - min = best case) Global Renewable Final Energy shares • Shares (max = adv. ER - Min = ER): 30% / 50% / 75% / over 90% • Consumer and business (Other Sectors) • Industry • Transport • Total Final Energy Efficiency & Demand Global Statonary Energy Use • Efficiency standards reduce OECD household demand to 550 kWh/a per person • Power demand for IT equipment stablized and start to decrease • National energy intensity drops to 3 MJ/$GDP (Japan’s level today) Global Transport Development • Shift fright from road to rail and where possible from aviation to ships • Shift towards more public transport • Efficient cars become mainstream

climate protection and energy policy |

image WANG WAN YI, AGE 76, ADJUSTS THE SUNLIGHT POINT ON A SOLAR DEVICE USED TO BOIL HIS KETTLE. HE LIVES WITH HIS WIFE IN ONE ROOM CARVED OUT OF THE SANDSTONE, A TYPICAL DWELLING FOR LOCAL PEOPLE IN THE REGION. DROUGHT IS ONE OF THE MOST HARMFUL NATURAL HAZARDS IN NORTHWEST CHINA. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON CHINA’S ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY.

Utilities & RE Industry National Governments Gov & Grid Operator RE - Industry Utilities Utilities RE Industry National Governments RE Industry

Consumer Product Dev. IT Industry Industry + Gov. Gov. + Logistic Industry Regional Governments Car-Industry

Energy Related CO2 Emissions • Global CO2 reductions (min = adv. ER - Max = ER): Emission peak / -30% / -50% / -80% • Annex 1 CO2 reductions (min = adv. ER - Max = ER): Emission peak / -30% / -50% / -80% • Non Annex 1 CO2 reductions (min = adv. ER - Max = ER): Emission peak / -30% / -50% / -80%

the energy sector in hungary: current circumstances for a potential energy [r]evolution HUNGARY

INTRODUCTION ENERGY SOURCES

OVERVIEW OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM IN HUNGARY

CURRENT POLICY MAKING KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

KEY PLAYERS

ima

EOT ge G

HER

L MA

P ER POW

O T, N LAN

RTH

ISL

EW D, N

ZEA

LAN

D. ©

ME STI EAM /DR H G GOU JOE

“the solution of the current crisis could be the transition to a new way of supplying energy.” PETER KADERJÁK DIRECTOR OF REKK (REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ENERGY POLICY RESEARCH)

This section examines the energy sector in Hungary, however, it is not the aim of the chapter to give a thorough and detailed analysis. It provides a brief overview of the main characteristics of the energy system and the currently used sources of energy in Hungary. It then presents the key players in the energy system, with particular focus on the electricity market and takes a look at some of the current energy policy making in the country. At the end of the chapter the main issues and challenges will be briefly touched upon. 2.1 introduction

In the coming years, we have the chance to sustainably transform our energy economy to adjust to the trends already happening in the world and in the European Union by focusing on the exploitation of our massive energy efficiency potential and on harvesting our renewable energy sources. For this, an Energy [R]evolution must happen, as for the moment, Hungary still relies mostly on nuclear and fossil energies. 2.2 energy sources Fossil fuels The mining industry used to be quite significant in Hungary, however, since the nineteen sixties, the exploited amount of domestic coal and lignite has been going through a gradual decrease. According to the Hungarian Mining and Geological Bureau the total amount of exploitable coal and lignite accounts for about 8.5-10 billion tons (mostly lignite), only a fraction of which is actually being extracted today.

Natural gas to some extent is also available in the country; however, the technological conditions are not in place for it to be exploited. And this brings us to a crucial point. If we look at the primary energy sources in Hungary, the import of natural gas has shown a significant increase in the last 20 years, 80% of which comes from Russia on one single pipeline. Even with the significant gas storage capacities available, this exposes Hungary to serious defencelessness and dependence on Russia which means a huge threat to our energy security. When it comes to oil, the situation is similar as with natural gas: most of it, over 80% needs to be imported.6 Although not a fossil fuel, it is worth to mention that domestic uranium mining has also played a part earlier, but since the exploitation was not economical, the production was ceased in 1997.7 Nuclear energy Hungary has one nuclear power plant with four operating VVER-440/213 reactors and an output of 2000 MW capacity. It plays a significant role in the electricity supply; in 2010 42% of the country’s electricity generation was covered by this type of energy. The reactors of Paks Nuclear Power Plant were built in the eighties and are based on Russian technology. They are close to reaching their end of lifetime (30 years), however, the Parliament has taken note of the lifetime extension plans in 2005, which would give the reactors an additional 20 years to operate (the last one until 2037). In 2009, the Parliament also indorsed plans about the preparation of additional new reactors on the site of Paks. Renewable energy The renewable energy production for the moment in Hungary is very low, at present renewables mean 7% of the country’s electricity (2010).8 However, most of that comes from biomass burnt in retrofitted coal plants with very low efficiency, and this is not sustainable. There is some wind (~300 MW) and some small hydro capacity (55 MW) in the system, but the rest is negligible. Currently, the necessary conditions are not in place for the large uptake of renewables to be possible in the Hungarian energy system. Neither the support scheme, nor the highly burocratic permitting procedure allows for what would be needed for an Energy [R]evolution to take place. Nevertheless, Hungary has great potential in solar, geothermal and wind energy, and to some extent, bioenergy could also be used (until sustainability limits are reached).

references 5 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, 2011: HTTP://WWW.KORMANY.HU/DOWNLOAD/3/58/30000/ESTRAT2030 PERCENT2020110513.PDF 6 OECD, INVENTORY OF ESTIMATED BUDGETARY SUPPORT AND TAX EXPENDITURES FOR FOSSIL FUELS, 2011 WWW.OECD.ORG/DATAOECD/40/35/48805150.PDF 7 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, 2011: HTTP://WWW.KORMANY.HU/DOWNLOAD/3/58/30000/ESTRAT2030%2020110513.PDF 8 MAVIR, DATA OF THE HUNGARIAN POWER SYSTEM 2010, HTTP://WWW.MAVIR.HU/C/DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/GET_FILE?UUID=43BF1B9F-9570-4492B6CD-9CA748B1ADB2&GROUPID=10262

HUNGARY’S ENERGY POLICY

More than 20 years have passed since the regime change in Hungary. Throughout these years the economy has gone through fundamental structural changes, which also meant a huge change in people’s lives. Much of the country’s former heavy industry was ramped down and there was a significant increase in the rate of unemployment. The mining industry declined, and energy demand has significantly dropped, after which it started its gradual, yet slow increase in 1992. Due to the economic crisis in 2009, another singificant drop (7.6%) in the consumption of primary energy happened, while in 2010 this number was 1085 PJ.5

image GREENPEACE ACTION TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AT HUNGARY'S FIRST WIND TURBINE, KULCS, HUNGARY.

implementing the energy [r]evolution |

image GREENPEACE CLIMATE ACTION DURING THE HUNGARIAN EU PRESIDENCY IN 2011 THAT URGED EU LEADERS TO UPGRADE THEIR AMBITION AND UNILATERALLY GO FOR THE 30% EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET, BUDAPEST, HUNGARY.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

2 implementing the energy [r]evolution | HUNGARY’S ENERGY POLICY

2.3 overview of the energy system in hungary

Figure 2.1 shows the share of domestic electricity consumption in 2010.

Electricity sector The Hungarian electricity sector is built around centralized, huge nuclear and fossil based low efficiency power plants. The average daily electricity demand is around 6,000 MW in Hungary. The installed capacity at the end of 2010 was 9,317 MW, the available capacity of which was 8,417.7 MW.9 64% of the constantly available capacity was not controllable, which is quite significant. There are 23 large power plants (nuclear, lignite, gas and coal power plants) and several small ones (mainly gas and renewable energy based plants) in the system. The economical crisis also had an effect on the electricity consumption, which dropped in 2009 to 41,5 TWh,10 however, it slightly grew again in 2010 by 2-3%.11

The electricity import in 2010 was 9,896.88 GWh and the export was 4,701.68 GWh, so the country was a net electricity importer. See Figure 2.2.

In 2010, 37% of the electricity consumption was covered by the production of Paks Nuclear Power Plant, and 28% was covered by natural gas plants. Lignite provided 12% of the consumption and 13% of the electricity was imported. Only 7% of the electricity consumption came from renewable energy in 2010. When it comes to renewable energy based electricity, we have to note that almost three quarters of this amount (~70%) comes from biomass, the use of which as of today is often unsustainable. In the future, biomass based electricity production will need to be proportionately reduced and meticulously examined according to strict sustainablility criteria. Within the renewable energy share, wind and hydro represent 13% and 9% respectively.

figure 2.1: share of domestic electricity consumption in 2010 37%

NUCLEAR POWER

13%

IMPORT

7% 28%

2% 1% 12%

RENEWABLES GAS

COAL OIL LIGNITE

source MAVIR, 2011.

figure 2.2: electriciy import & export 2010

SLOVAKIA

UKRAINE

4,934.70 / 55.90 GWh

2,060.40 / 422.70 GWh

4,878.80 GWh

1,637.70 GWh

•• •

AUSTRIA 1,013.20 / 641.20 GWh 372.00 GWh

EXPORT 4,701.68 GWh IMPORT 9,896.88 GWh NET BALANCE 5,195.20 GWh

ROMANIA 1,252.09 / 146.25 GWh 1,105.85 GWh

SERBIA CROATIA

543.99 / 392.24 GWh

92.50 / 3,043.40 GWh

151.75 GWh

-2,950.90 GWh

source MAVIR, 2011. references 9 MAVIR, DATA OF THE HUNGARIAN POWER SYSTEM 2010, HTTP://WWW.MAVIR.HU/C/DOCUMENT_LIBRARY/GET_FILE?UUID=43BF1B9F-9570-4492B6CD-9CA748B1ADB2&GROUPID=10262 10 NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTION PLAN, 2011 HTTP://EC.EUROPA.EU/ENERGY/RENEWABLES/TRANSPARENCY_PLATFORM/DOC/NATIONA L_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_ACTION_PLAN_HUNGARY_EN.PDF 11 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, 2011: HTTP://WWW.KORMANY.HU/DOWNLOAD/3/58/30000/ESTRAT2030%2020110513.PDF

Transport sector Road transportation shows a significant increase at the expense of rail transportation, partly due to the greater flexibility of the former. Motor vehicle traffic is responsible for roughly two thirds of the transportation emissions in Hungary despite the fact that the number of cars per 1,000 people (300 in 2009) is much lower than the EU27 average (473 in the same year).13 Therefore, to reduce emissions, rail transportation should be developed, and in the long term the electrification of road transportation will also be a key step.

MVM Trade is the dominant electricity wholesaler in the country, and has a significant portion of the retail sales market as well (MVM Partner, MVM-ADWEST). MVM is the owner of Paks Nuclear Power Plant, Vértes Power Plant and Tatabánya Power Plant, having a share in another two – granting the group an overwhelming role as a power generator as well. MAVIR is the transmission system operator, and being a subsidiary it legally conforms the rules for functional unbundling, yet its operation is integrated into the group. Other members deal with the implementation of network development projects (OVIT) and the associated engineering services (MVM ERBE).15 A strategic objective of the group is to increase their market to the regional level. MVM focuses on “guaranteeing the security of supply and […] keeping electricity prices at a favourable level”. On their website MVM claims they try to “reduce the impacts on the environmental components and ecological systems, to cut down on pollutant emissions as well as to remediate previous and prevent further environmental damage”, yet there is no commitment to a significant increase of renewable energy in the mix they produce. The Environmental Protection section of the 2010 Annual Report of the company only consists of the acquisition of the biggest wind farm of the country, pilot projects, selective waste management in the office and the health check of tailings storages at Vértes and Paks Power Plants.16

2.4 key players The Hungarian governments have harmonised the legislation with the EU directives on opening up the electricity and gas markets, yet the monopoly of the former national companies has not been trimmed back, thus there is no level playing field for a healthy competition in the energy sector. The oil and gas industry is dominated by MOL, the former national oil company privatised in the 1990s, also responsible for operating the national gas transmission system. There are five big regional residential gas suppliers, owned by E.ON, Gaz de France and Italgas. Similarly, German RWE owns half of the Budapest Supply Company. Hungary strongly depends on Russia in energy - over 80% of the oil and nearly 80% of the natural gas is imported from there.14

2.5 current policy making This section touches upon the most recent policy documents that have been formulated in Hungary. The following pieces are highlighted, because we found them essential from the perspective of the Energy [R]evolution, however, we do not wish to judge nor prioritize these documents. It is also important to mention that in this section we are not talking about the Gas Act, nor the Electricity Act that are currently the main pieces of law in effect today regulating the energy market.

As for the electricity, MVM is a state-owned utility giant who has power plants all around the country. It is producing and trading electricity and is operating the national grid. Together with its subsidiaries it forms the MVM Group, dealing with nearly all the different tasks related to the power network. As for the distribution network operators, most of the country is covered by E.ON and EDF.

references 12 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, 2011: HTTP://WWW.KORMANY.HU/DOWNLOAD/3/58/30000/ESTRAT2030%2020110513.PDF 13 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, 2011: HTTP://WWW.KORMANY.HU/DOWNLOAD/3/58/30000/ESTRAT2030%2020110513.PDF 14 OECD, INVENTORY OF ESTIMATED BUDGETARY SUPPORT AND TAX EXPENDITURES FOR FOSSIL FUELS, 2011, WWW.OECD.ORG/DATAOECD/40/35/48805150.PDF 15 MVM WEBSITE, 2011. HTTP://ENGLISH.MVM.HU/ENGINE.ASPX?PAGE=TEVEKENYSEGUNK 16 MVM ANNUAL REPORT, 2010.

HUNGARY’S ENERGY POLICY

Heating sector Today, 40% of all the energy in Hungary is used for buildings, two thirds of which for heating and cooling and 17% of the households are connected to district heating.12 Most of the public buildings, residential flats and houses in the country don’t meet the modern thermal-technical requirements and about 80% of the heat ’escapes’ through the walls and windows, which is a serious waste of energy. The huge portion of natural gas in the energy mix is also a burning question from an energy security perspective. Therefore the challenge is not only to reduce the current practice of wasting massive amounts of energy, but also to diversify the imports of natural gas. Retrofitting the existing building stock in Hungary could play a major role in improving this situation, moreover a broad-scale energy efficiency and insulation programme would have an invigorating effect on the economy as well.

image CLIMATE ACTION, HUNGARYCOUNTRY WIDE RENEWABLE ENERGY TOUR IN 2010 TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES IN HUNGARY.

implementing the energy [r]evolution |

image CLOSING GREENPEACE ACTION OF THE HUNGARIAN EU PRESIDENCY TERM WITH A SPEACIAL FOCUS ON THE URGE FOR HIGHER CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS IN THE EU, ON THE DANUBE IN BUDAPEST, HUNGARY..

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

2 implementing the energy [r]evolution | NATIONAL POLICIES AND TRENDS

The National Renewable Energy Action Plan

2.6 key issues and challenges

At the end of 2010 Hungary has completed and in January 2011 submitted its National Renewable Energy Action Plan based on the 2009/28/EK EU Directive. The country’s action plan is ambitious, given the fact that it aims to overachieve its set 13% RES target by 1.65% by 2020 and it is included in the plan to create a separate piece of renewable energy legislation as well. This legislation might bring about the necessary changes to the current system, furthermore for a longer term it is absolutely necessary to make the spread of renewables possible, because right now the permitting procedure is way too complicated and there is no certainty for renewable energy investors. This difficult environment can only be changed with strong and unequivocal regulation that can give way to the much needed development and acceleration in this field. The plan also outlines how the feed in tariff system needs to be reviewed and changed, which process is currently ongoing in the responsible ministry. According to the plan, priority will be given to biomass and biogas CHP plants. It also counts with the increase of wind and solar energy.

For the Energy [R]evolution to happen in Hungary, many things have to be changed. Roughly 80% of both the gas and oil, and about 15% of the electricity demand is covered by imports, the former two coming from Russia (as well as the whole uranium fuel supply), the latter from Slovakia. To resolve this situation which raises serious questions with regards to the security of supply, strong energy efficiency measures should be implemented, together with the diversification of the import sources.

The National Energy Strategy 2030 In the autumn of 2011, the government has agreed on the new National Energy Strategy which shows the possible energy pathways Hungary can take in the future until 2030. This document shows the current direction of the government’s thinking in terms of how the energy system needs to look like in the coming decades, which basically means strong nuclear presence and some renewables. The Strategy was created to address five of the following areas: security of supply, sustainability, competitiveness, stimulation of the economy, and doing away with energy poverty.17 Six scenarios for the power plant set up were established, and the one that was accepted by the government counts with new nuclear capacities and some moderate renewable energy development (mainly following what is outlined in the NREAP), not taking note of the fact that Hungary could do a lot better when it comes to renewables. Based on the document, it is also a possibility that the biggest lignite fired power plant, Mátrai, will receive a new 440 MW block using CCS technology.

There is a great potential in the energy efficiency of buildings in the country - even if we do not take geothermal-based district heating into account, proper insulation and the modernization of the heating systems could save as much as 80% of the energy used in residential, commercial and public buildings. This huge waste of energy is also felt by the people. An average Hungarian household pays more than 10% of its income for energy bills; based on a definition commonly used in the UK, every second household is “energy poor” in Hungary.18 Not only the houses are wasting energy. The whole electric grid is ineffective due to its centralised structure and old infrastructure. Big plants like Paks Nuclear Power Plant and Mátra Coal Power Plant are inflexible, therefore they cannot react to the natural fluctuation in the energy demand during the day. The energy production should be more localised and more adaptive, which requires the implementation of a more interconnected smart grid system. A prerequisite to all of this, and something constituting a challenge in itself, is the general mindset which still does not see renewables as a viable option. This is especially important regarding the decision-makers, as they have the power to put the necessary renewable policies and measures forward in order to ensure a lowcarbon, energy efficient future and stimulating the economy at the same time. Hungary has decent renewable potentials, providing a real alternative to the current energy system, and a solution to the interrelated issues above.

The nuclear act modification The nuclear act modification has been also been recently ongoing. According to this, the permitting procedure of new nuclear capacities could be done simultaneously with the construction and transformation processes, which basically mean much higher security risks. The modification of the act definitely shows the influence of the nuclear industry in the policy making, whose interest is to have additional nuclear capacities.

references 17 NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, 2011: HTTP://WWW.KORMANY.HU/DOWNLOAD/3/58/30000/ESTRAT2030%2020110513.PDF

18 ENERGIAKLUB HTTP://ENERGIAKLUB.HU/DL/ENERGIAARAK_V_ENERGIASZEGENYSEG.PDF

nuclear power and climate protection GLOBAL

A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE PROTECTION? NUCLEAR POWER BLOCKS SOLUTIONS

NUCLEAR POWER IN THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR POWER

image SIGN ON A RUSTY DOOR AT CHERNOBYL ATOMIC STATION. © DMYTRO/DREAMSTIME

“safety and security risks, radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation.”

3 nuclear power and climate protection |

Nuclear energy is a relatively minor industry with major problems. It covers just one sixteenth of the world’s primary energy consumption, a share set to decline over the coming decades. The average age of operating commercial nuclear reactors is 25 years. The number of operating reactors as of May 2011 was 443, less than at the historical peak of 2002.

A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE PROTECTION?

In terms of new power stations, the amount of nuclear capacity added annually between 2000 and 2009 was on average 2,500 MWe. This was six times less than wind power (14,500 MWe per annum between 2000 and 2009). In 2009, 37,466 MW of new wind power capacity was added globally to the grid, compared to only 1,068 MW of nuclear. This new wind capacity will generate as much electricity as |12 nuclear reactors; the last time the nuclear industry managed to add this amount of new capacity in a single year was in 1988. Despite the rhetoric of a 'nuclear renaissance', the industry is struggling with a massive increase in costs and construction delays as well as safety and security problems linked to reactor operation, radioactive waste and nuclear proliferation. The Fukushima nuclear accident (see below) 25 years after the disastrous explosion in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in former Soviet Union, proves nuclear energy is inherently unsafe and raises additional doubts about the nuclear industry’s ability to deliver on their promises of safety and security. As a consequence of the Fukushima accident, the German Parliament, with overwhelming support, passed a law on 30 June 2011 which puts an end to all 17 German nuclear plants by 2022. This includes the immediate shutdown of eight nuclear power stations and a gradual phase out of the remaining nine. On the same day, Germany also passed a set of laws which will further boost renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to meet the nation’s energy needs. In June 2011 95% of Italian voters made the decision to reject nuclear energy in a referendum about nuclear power. Recently, the Austrian government has also been considering a ban on all nuclear power imports – this new trend representing consumer preferences can easily spread to other countries too. 3.1 a solution to climate protection? The nuclear industry’s promise of nuclear energy to contribute to both climate protection and energy security needs to be checked against reality. In the most recent Energy Technology Perspectives report published by the International Energy Agency(IEA),19 for example, its Blue Map scenario outlines a future energy mix which would halve global carbon emissions by the middle of this century. To reach this goal the IEA assumes a massive expansion of nuclear power between now and 2050, with installed capacity increasing four-fold and electricity generation reaching 9,857 TWh/year, compared to 2,607 TWh in 2007. In order to achieve this, the report says that on average 32 large reactors (1,000 MWe each) would have to be built every year from now until 2050. This is not only unrealistic, but also expensive, hazardous and too late to protect the climate. Even if realised, according to the IEA scenario, such a massive nuclear expansion would only cut carbon emissions by less than 5%.

unrealistic: Such a rapid nuclear growth is practically impossible given the technical limitations. This scale of development was achieved in the history of nuclear power for only two years at the peak of the state-driven boom of the mid-1980s. It is unlikely to be achieved again, not to mention maintained for 40 consecutive years. While 1984 and 1985 saw 31 GW of newly added nuclear capacity, the decade average was 17 GW each year. In the past ten years, less than three large reactors have been brought on line annually, and the current production capacity of the global nuclear industry cannot deliver more than an annual six units. expensive: The IEA scenario assumes very optimistic investment costs of $2,100/kWe installed, in line with what the industry has been promising. The reality indicates three to four times that much. Recent estimates by US business analysts Moody’s (May 2008) put the cost of nuclear investment as high as $7,500/kWe. Price quotes for projects under preparation in the US cover a range from $5,200 to 8,000/kWe.20 The latest cost estimate for the first French EPR pressurised water reactor being built in Finland is $5,000/kWe, a figure likely to increase for later reactors as prices escalate. Building 1,400 large reactors of 1,000 MWe, even at the current cost of about $7,000/kWe, would require an investment of $9.8 trillion. hazardous: Massive expansion of nuclear energy would necessarily lead to a large increase in related hazards. These include the risk of serious reactor accidents like in Fukushima, Japan, the growing stockpiles of deadly high level nuclear waste which will need to be safeguarded for thousands of years, and potential proliferation of both nuclear technologies and materials through diversion to military or terrorist use. The 1,400 large operating reactors in 2050 would generate an annual 35,000 tonnes of dangerous spent nuclear fuel (for light water reactors, the most common design for most new projects). This also means the production of 350,000 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough to build 35,000 crude nuclear weapons. slow: Climate science says that we need to reach a peak of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2015 and reduce them by 20% by 2020. Even in developed countries with established nuclear infrastructure it takes at least a decade from the decision to build a reactor to the delivery of its first electricity, and often much longer. This means that even if the world’s governments decided to implement strong nuclear expansion now, only a few reactors would start generating electricity before 2020. The contribution from nuclear power towards reducing emissions would come too late to help save the climate. 3.2 nuclear power blocks solutions Even if the ambitious nuclear scenario is implemented, regardless of costs and hazards, the IEA concludes that the contribution of nuclear power to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector would only be 4.6% - less than 3% of the global overall reduction required. references 19 ‘ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVES 2008 - SCENARIOS & STRATEGIES TO 2050’, IEA. 20 PLATTS, 2008; ENERGY BIZ, MAY/JUNE 2008

image MEASURING RADIATION LEVELS OF A HOUSE IN THE TOWN OF PRIPYAT THAT WAS LEFT ABANDONED AFTER THE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR DISASTER, UKRAINE.

image CANDLE VIGIL HIGHLIGHTING THE DANGER OF NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR DISASTER, BUDAPEST, HUNGARY.

3 There are other technologies that can deliver much larger emission reductions, and much faster. Their investment costs are lower and they do not create global security risks. Even the IEA finds that the combined potential of efficiency savings and renewable energy to cut emissions by 2050 is more than ten times larger than that of nuclear.

Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), Tokaimura (1999) and Fukushima (2011) are only a few of the hundreds of nuclear accidents which have occurred to date. The Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 has been a stark wakeup call causing governments all over the world to rethink their nuclear plans. Despite the nuclear industry’s assurances that a nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl could never happen again, the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan caused leaks and explosions in 4 reactors of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Large areas around the nuclear power plant have been seriously contaminated by radioactive releases from the plant. An area of 30 km around the facility has been evacuated, and food and water restrictions apply at distances more than 100 km. The impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people as well as the Japanese economy will be felt for decades to come.

The world has limited time, finance and industrial capacity to change our energy sector and achieve a large reduction in greenhouse emissions. Choosing the pathway of spending $10 trillion on nuclear development would be a fatally wrong decision. This is particularly true for Hungary, a country with good renewable energy resources and enormous energy efficiency potential, both leading to significant economic and job creation benefits if the country is to choose the sustainable energy pathway. Nuclear energy would not save the climate but it would necessarily take resources away from solutions described in this report and at the same time create serious national, regional and global security hazards. Therefore new nuclear reactors are a clearly dangerous obstacle to the protection of the climate. 3.3 nuclear power in the energy [r]evolution scenario For the reasons explained above, the Energy [R]evolution scenario envisages a nuclear phase-out. In our global scenario existing reactors would be closed at the end of their average operational lifetime of 35 years. We assume that no new construction is started and only two thirds of the reactors currently under construction worldwide would be finally put into operation. In Hungary, the Paks Nuclear Power Plant’s 4 VVER reactors reach the end of their original 30 years of official lifetime in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017 respectively. Greenpeace envisages the phase out of these nuclear reactors step by step, but as fast as possible; first of all for safety and security, but also for market and policy reasons. The last one of the Hungarian commercial reactors could be shut down for good at the latest by 2022, but only allowing for the extra operating years if newly developed thorough and international, independently peer-reviewed safety and security annual checks allow for that. 3.4 the dangers of nuclear power Although the generation of electricity through nuclear power produces much less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, there are multiple threats to people and the environment from its operations. The main risks are: • Safety Risks • Nuclear Waste • Nuclear Proliferation This is the background to why nuclear power has been discounted as a future technology in the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario.

Nuclear energy is inherently unsafe because: • An accident like in Fukushima can happen in many of the existing nuclear reactors, as they all need continuous power to cool the reactors and spent nuclear fuel, even after the reactor has shut down. A simple power failure at a Swedish nuclear plant in 2006 highlighted this problem. Emergency power systems at the Forsmark plant failed for 20 minutes during a power cut and four of Sweden’s ten nuclear power stations had to be shut down. If power had not been restored there could have been a major incident within hours. In 2011 six out of the ten Swedesh reactors happened to be closed down at the same time for inspection and maintenance, after the regulator found serious deficiencies in previous safety checks. • A nuclear chain reaction must be kept under control, and harmful radiation must, as far as possible, be contained within the reactor, with radioactive products isolated from humans and carefully managed. Nuclear reactions generate high temperatures, and fluids used for cooling are often kept under pressure. Together with the intense radioactivity, these high temperatures and pressures make operating a reactor a difficult and complex task. • Plant lifetime extension. The risks from operating reactors are increasing and the likelihood of an accident is now higher than ever due to ageing. Most of the world’s reactors are more than 25 years old and therefore more prone to age related failures. Many utilities are attempting to extend the lifetime of their reactors from the 30 years or so which they were originally designed for up to 50-60 years, posing new risks. • De-regulation has meanwhile pushed nuclear utilities to decrease safety-related investments and limit staff whilst increasing reactor pressure and operational temperature and the burn-up of the fuel. This accelerates ageing and decreases safety margins. • At any nuclear power plant lifetime extension brings about serious questions, many of those also related to ageing processes. With aging, the number of incidents and reportable events at a nuclear power plant increase.

NUCLEAR POWER IN THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION

3.4.1 safety risks

nuclear power and climate protection |

3.2.1 other technologies much cheaper and faster

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

3 nuclear power and climate protection |

• Even if operators try their best to minimalize dangers arising from aging when preparing for lifetime extensions, one thing is certain: lifetime extensions, especially those preceded by power uprating, exacerbate the hazards of ageing and increase the risk of a nuclear catastrophe. • There are certain fundamental components of a nuclear power plant which cannot be exchanged, e.g. the reactor vessel itself, the containment, and at some plant designs even the steam generators, like in the case of Paks, too.

NUCLEAR POWER IN THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION

• At Paks Nuclear Power Plant the power uprating processes have already taken place. The increase of the thermal power implies more nuclear fissions and also higher loads and strain to the reactor materials. At the same time, power uprates usually reduce operational safety margins and speeds up ageing processes. • Probabilistic safety assessment studies do not take aging into account on a sufficient level (e.g. taking equipment failure rates from the lowest parts of the “bathtub curve”) leading to the underestimation of risks of a nuclear accident, which grows intensely with each year. 3.4.2 nuclear waste Despite 50 years of producing radioactive waste, there is no solution for the long term storage and safeguarding of these dangerous materials. Disposal sites of low level radioactive waste have already started leaking after decades, while the highly radioactive waste will need to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear industry claims it can ‘dispose’ of its nuclear waste by burying it deep underground, but this will not isolate the radioactive material from the environment forever. A deep dump only slows down the release of radioactivity into the environment. The industry tries to predict how fast a dump will leak so that it can claim that radiation doses to the public living nearby in the future will be “acceptably low”. But scientific understanding is not sufficiently advanced to make such predictions with any certainty. As part of its campaign to build new nuclear stations around the world, the industry claims that problems associated with burying nuclear waste are to do with public acceptability rather than technical issues. It points to nuclear dumping proposals in Finland, Hungary or the United States to underline its argument, but there is no scientific backing of its claims of safe disposal. The most hazardous waste is the highly radioactive waste (or spent) fuel removed from nuclear reactors, which stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. In some countries the situation is exacerbated by ‘reprocessing’ this spent fuel, which involves dissolving it in nitric acid to separate out weapons-usable plutonium. This process leaves behind a highly radioactive liquid waste. There are about 270,000 tonnes of spent nuclear waste fuel in storage, much of it at reactor sites. Spent fuel is accumulating at around 12,000 tonnes per year, with around a quarter of that going for reprocessing.21

The least damaging option for waste already created at the current time is to store it above ground, in dry storage at the site of origin, although this option also presents major challenges and threats, as was seen in the Fukushima accident where the cooling of the spent nuclear fuel pools posed major problems. The only real solution is to stop producing the waste. 3.4.3 nuclear proliferation Manufacturing a nuclear bomb requires fissile material - either uranium-235 or plutonium-239. Most nuclear reactors use uranium as a fuel and produce plutonium during their operation. It is impossible to adequately prevent the diversion of plutonium to nuclear weapons. A small-scale plutonium separation plant can be built in four to six months, so any country with an ordinary reactor can produce nuclear weapons relatively quickly. The result is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons have grown up like Siamese twins.22 Since international controls on nuclear proliferation began, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have all obtained nuclear weapons, demonstrating the link between civil and military nuclear power. Both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) embody an inherent contradiction - seeking to promote the development of ‘peaceful’ nuclear power whilst at the same time trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Israel, India and Pakistan all used their civil nuclear operations to develop weapons capability, operating outside international safeguards. North Korea developed a nuclear weapon even as a signatory of the NPT. A major challenge to nuclear proliferation controls has been the spread of uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that “should a state with a fully developed fuel-cycle capability decide, for whatever reason, to break away from its nonproliferation commitments, most experts believe it could produce a nuclear weapon within a matter of months”.23 The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has also warned that the security threat of trying to tackle climate change with a global fast reactor programme (using plutonium fuel) “would be colossal”.24 All of the reactor designs currently being promoted around the world could be fuelled by MOX (mixed oxide fuel), from which plutonium can be easily separated. Restricting the production of fissile material to a few ‘trusted’ countries will not work. It will engender resentment and create a colossal security threat. A new UN agency is needed to tackle the twin threats of climate change and nuclear proliferation by phasing out nuclear power and promoting sustainable energy, in the process promoting world peace rather than threatening it. references 21 ‘WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE’, WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, INFORMATION AND ISSUE BRIEF, FEBRUARY 2006 (WWW.WORLDNUCLEAR.ORG/INFO/INF04.HTML) 22 SWEDESH PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER HANNES ALFVEN ALSO DESCRIBED THE MILITARY AND THE PEACFUL ATOMS AS SIAMESE TWINS. (E.G. ’THE BRITISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME, 1952-2002‘ AUTHORS: DOUGLAS HOLDSTOCK,FRANK BARNABY). 23 MOHAMED ELBARADEI, ‘TOWARDS A SAFER WORLD’, THE ECONOMIST, 18 OCTOBER 2003. 24 IPCC WORKING GROUP II, ‘IMPACTS, ADAPTATIONS AND MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: SCIENTIFIC-TECHNICAL ANALYSES’, 1995.

image NUCLEAR REACTOR IN LIANYUNGANG, CHINA.

3 nuclear power and climate protection |

figure 3.1: the nuclear fuel chain

U#92 5. reprocessing 4. power plant operation

Uranium, used in nuclear power plants, is extracted from mines in a handful of countries. Over 90% of supply comes from just seven countries: Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia, Namibia, Russia, Niger and Uzbekistan. Mine workers breathe in radioactive gas from which they are in danger of contracting lung cancer. Uranium mining produces huge quantities of mining debris, including radioactive particles that can contaminate surface water and food.

Uranium nuclei are split in a nuclear reactor, releasing energy which heats up water. The compressed steam is converted in a turbine generator into electricity. This process creates a radioactive ‘cocktail’ which involves more than 100 products. One of these is the highly toxic and long-lasting plutonium. Radioactive material can enter the environment through accidents at nuclear power plants. The two worst accidents to date happened at Chernobyl in the then Soviet Union in 1986 and in Fukushima, Japan in March 2011. A typical nuclear reactor generates enough plutonium every year for the production of 40 nuclear weapons.

2. uranium enrichment Natural uranium and concentrated ‘yellow cake’ contain just 0.7% of the fissionable uranium isotope 235. To be suitable for use in most nuclear reactors, its share must go up to 3 or 5% via enrichment. This process can be carried out in 16 facilities around the world. 80% of the total volume is rejected as ‘tails’, a waste product. Enrichment generates massive amounts of ‘depleted uranium’ that ends up as long-lived radioactive waste or is used in weapons or as tank shielding.

Reprocessing involves the chemical extraction of contaminated uranium and plutonium from used reactor fuel rods. There are now over 230,000 kilograms of plutonium stockpiled around the world from reprocessing – five kilograms is sufficient for one nuclear bomb. Reprocessing is not the same as recycling: the volume of waste increases many tens of times and millions of litres of radioactive waste are discharged into the sea and air each day. The process also demands the transport of radioactive material and nuclear waste by ship, rail, air and road around the world. An accident or terrorist attack could release vast quantities of nuclear material into the environment. There is no way to guarantee the safety of nuclear transport.

THE NUCLEAR FUEL CHAIN

1. uranium mining

6. waste storage 3. fuel rod – production Enriched material is converted into uranium dioxide and compressed to pellets in fuel rod production facilities. These pellets fill 4 metre long tubes called fuel rods. There are 29 fuel rod production facilities globally. The worst accident in this type of facility happened in September 1999 in Tokaimura, Japan, when two workers died. Several hundred workers and villagers were also exposed to radiation.

There is not a single final storage facility for highly radioactive nuclear waste available anywhere in the world. Safe secure storage of high level waste over thousands of years remains unproven, leaving a deadly legacy for future generations. Despite this the nuclear industry continues to generate more and more waste each day.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

the energy [r]evolution GLOBAL

KEY PRINCIPLES FROM PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICE

A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PATHWAY NEW BUSINESS MODEL

HYBRID SYSTEMS

PA T /D

REAM

STIME

SMART GRIDS

THE NEW ELECTRICITY GRID

E US EL U F TH F R OM FO S S I L

.©

“half the solution to climate change is the smart use of power.” GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CAMPAIGN

4.1 key principles the energy [r]evolution can be achieved by adhering to five key principles: 1.respect natural limits – phase out fossil fuels by the end of this century We must learn to respect natural limits. There is only so much carbon that the atmosphere can absorb. Each year humans emit over 25 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent; we are literally filling up the sky. Geological resources of coal could provide several hundred years of fuel, but we cannot burn them and keep within safe limits. Oil and coal development must be ended. The global Energy [R]evolution scenario has a target to reduce energy related CO2 emissions to a maximum of 10 Gigatonnes (Gt) by 2050 and phase out fossil fuels by 2085. 2.equity and fairness As long as there are natural limits there needs to be a fair distribution of benefits and costs within societies, between nations and between present and future generations. At one extreme, a third of the world’s population has no access to electricity, whilst the most industrialised countries consume much more than their fair share. The effects of climate change on the poorest communities are exacerbated by massive global energy inequality. If we are to address climate change, one of the core principles must be equity and fairness, so that the benefits of energy services – such as light, heat, power and transport – are available for all: north and south, rich and poor. Only in this way can we create true energy security, as well as the conditions for genuine human wellbeing. The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario has a target to achieve energy equity as soon as technically possible. By 2050 the average per capita emission should be between 1 and 2 tonnes of CO2.

Just as climate change is real, so is the renewable energy sector. Sustainable decentralised energy systems produce less carbon emissions, are cheaper and involve less dependence on imported fuel. They create more jobs and empower local communities. Decentralised systems are more secure and more efficient. This is what the Energy [R]evolution must aim to create. “THE STONE AGE DID NOT END FOR LACK OF STONE, AND THE OIL AGE WILL END LONG BEFORE THE WORLD RUNS OUT OF OIL.”

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi Arabian oil minister

To stop the earth’s climate spinning out of control, most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves – coal, oil and gas – must remain in the ground. Our goal is for humans to live within the natural limits of our small planet. 4.decouple growth from fossil fuel use Starting in the developed countries, economic growth must be fully decoupled from fossil fuel usage. It is a fallacy to suggest that economic growth must be predicated on their increased combustion. We need to use the energy we produce much more efficiently, and we need to make the transition to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels quickly in order to enable clean and sustainable growth. 5.phase out dirty, unsustainable energy We need to phase out coal and nuclear power. We cannot continue to build coal plants at a time when emissions pose a real and present danger to both ecosystems and people. And we cannot continue to fuel the myriad nuclear threats by pretending nuclear power can in any way help to combat climate change. There is no role for nuclear power in the Energy [R]evolution. 4.2 from principles to practice In 2010, renewable energy sources accounted for 11% of Europe’s final energy demand. Biomass, which is mostly used for heating, was the main renewable energy source. The share of renewable energy in electricity generation was 20%. The contribution of renewables to primary energy demand for heat supply was around 12%. About 77% of primary energy supply today still comes from fossil fuels.25 The time is right to make substantial structural changes in the energy and power sector within the next decade. Many power plants in industrialised countries, such as the USA, Japan and the European Union, are nearing retirement; more than half of all operating power plants are over 20 years old. At the same time developing countries,

references 25 ‘EUROSTAT, 2010.

KEY PRINCIPLES

Current electricity generation relies mainly on burning fossil fuels, with their associated CO2 emissions, in very large power stations which waste much of their primary input energy. More energy is lost as the power is moved around the electricity grid network and converted from high transmission voltage down to a supply suitable for domestic or commercial consumers. The system is innately vulnerable to disruption: localised technical, weather-related or even deliberately caused faults can quickly cascade, resulting in widespread blackouts. Whichever technology is used to generate electricity within this old fashioned configuration, it will inevitably be subject to some, or all, of these problems. At the core of the Energy [R]evolution there therefore needs to be a change in the way that energy is both produced and distributed.

3.implement clean, renewable solutions and decentralise energy systems There is no energy shortage. All we need to do is use existing technologies to harness energy effectively and efficiently. Renewable energy and energy efficiency measures are ready, viable and increasingly competitive. Wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies have experienced double digit market growth for the past decade.

the energy [r]evolution |

The climate change imperative demands nothing short of an Energy [R]evolution. The expert consensus is that this fundamental shift must begin immediately and be well underway within the next ten years in order to avert the worst impacts. What is needed is a complete transformation of the way we produce, consume and distribute energy, while at the same time maintaining economic growth. Nothing short of such a revolution will enable us to limit global warming to less than a rise in temperature of 2° Celsius, above which the impacts become devastating.

image GREENPEACE AND AN INDEPENDENT NASA-FUNDED SCIENTIST COMPLETED MEASUREMENTS OF MELT LAKES ON THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET THAT SHOW ITS VULNERABILITY TO WARMING TEMPERATURES.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

such as China, India and Brazil, are looking to satisfy the growing energy demand created by their expanding economies.

A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PATHWAY

To make this happen both renewable energy and cogeneration – on a large scale and through decentralised, smaller units – have to grow faster than overall global energy demand. Both approaches must replace old generating technologies and deliver the additional energy required in the developing world. As it is not possible to switch directly from the current large scale fossil and nuclear fuel based energy system to a full renewable energy supply, a transition phase is required to build up the necessary infrastructure. Whilst remaining firmly committed to the promotion of renewable sources of energy, we appreciate that gas, used in appropriately scaled cogeneration plants, is valuable as a transition fuel, and able to drive cost-effective decentralisation of the energy infrastructure. With warmer summers, tri-generation, which incorporates heat-fired absorption chillers to deliver cooling capacity in addition to heat and power, will become a particularly valuable means of achieving emissions reductions.

The most important energy saving options are improved heat insulation and building design, super efficient electrical machines and drives, replacement of old style electrical heating systems by renewable heat production (such as solar collectors) and a reduction in energy consumption by vehicles used for goods and passenger traffic. Industrialised countries, which currently use energy in the most inefficient way, can reduce their consumption drastically without the loss of either housing comfort or information and entertainment electronics. The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario uses energy saved in OECD countries as a compensation for the increasing power requirements in developing countries. The ultimate goal is stabilisation of global energy consumption within the next two decades. At the same time the aim is to create ‘energy equity’ – shifting the current one-sided waste of energy in the industrialised countries towards a fairer worldwide distribution of efficiently used supply. A dramatic reduction in primary energy demand compared to the Reference scenario – but with the same GDP and population development – is a crucial prerequisite for achieving a significant share of renewable energy sources in the overall energy supply system, compensating for the phasing out of nuclear energy and reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.

4.3 a development pathway The Energy [R]evolution envisages a development pathway which turns the present energy supply structure into a sustainable system. There are three main stages to this: step 1: energy efficiency The Energy [R]evolution is aimed at the ambitious exploitation of the potential for energy efficiency. It focuses on current best practice and technologies that will become available in the future, assuming continuous innovation. The energy savings are fairly

step 2: the renewable Energy [R]evolution decentralised energy and large scale renewables In order to achieve higher fuel efficiencies and reduce distribution losses, the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario makes extensive use of Decentralised Energy (DE). This is energy generated at or near the point of use.

figure 4.1: energy loss, by centralised generation systems

61.5 units

3.5 units

LOST THROUGH INEFFICIENT

LOST THROUGH TRANSMISSION

13 units WASTED THROUGH

GENERATION AND HEAT WASTAGE

AND DISTRIBUTION

INEFFICIENT END USE

the energy [r]evolution |

Within the next ten years, the power sector will decide how this new demand will be met, either by fossil and nuclear fuels or by the efficient use of renewable energy. The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario is based on a new political framework in favour of renewable energy and cogeneration combined with energy efficiency.

equally distributed over the three sectors – industry, transport and domestic/business. Intelligent use, not abstinence, is the basic philosophy for future energy conservation.

100 units >>

38.5 units >>

35 units >> 22 units

ENERGY WITHIN FOSSIL FUEL

OF ENERGY FED TO NATIONAL GRID

OF ENERGY SUPPLIED

OF ENERGY ACTUALLY UTILISED

A huge proportion of global energy in 2050 will be produced by decentralised energy sources, although large scale renewable energy supply will still be needed in order to achieve a fast transition to a renewables dominated system. Large offshore wind farms and concentrating solar power (CSP) plants in the sunbelt regions of the world will therefore have an important role to play. cogeneration The increased use of combined heat and power generation (CHP) will improve the supply system’s energy conversion efficiency, whether using natural gas or biomass. In the longer term, a decreasing demand for heat and the large potential

renewable electricity The electricity sector will be the pioneer of renewable energy utilisation. Many renewable electricity technologies have been experiencing steady growth over the past 20 to 30 years of up to 35% annually and are expected to consolidate at a high level between 2030 and 2050. By 2050, under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, the majority of electricity will be produced from renewable energy sources. The anticipated growth of electricity use in transport will further promote the effective use of renewable power generation technologies. renewable heating In the heat supply sector, the contribution of renewables will increase significantly. Growth rates are expected to be similar to those of the renewable electricity sector. Fossil fuels will be increasingly replaced by more efficient modern technologies, in particular biomass, solar collectors and geothermal. By 2050, renewable energy technologies will satisfy the major part of heating and cooling demand. transport Before new technologies, including hybrid or electric cars and new fuels such as biofuels, can play a substantial role in the transport sector, the existing large efficiency potentials have to be exploited. In this study, biomass is primarily committed to stationary applications; the use of biofuels for transport is limited by the availability of sustainably grown biomass.26 Electric vehicles will therefore play an even more important role in improving energy efficiency in transport and substituting for fossil fuels.

figure 4.2: a decentralised energy future EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, APPLIED IN A DECENTRALISED WAY AND COMBINED WITH EFFICIENCY MEASURES AND ZERO EMISSION DEVELOPMENTS, CAN DELIVER LOW CARBON COMMUNITIES AS ILLUSTRATED HERE. POWER IS GENERATED USING EFFICIENT COGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES PRODUCING BOTH HEAT (AND SOMETIMES COOLING) PLUS ELECTRICITY, DISTRIBUTED VIA LOCAL NETWORKS. THIS SUPPLEMENTS THE ENERGY PRODUCED FROM BUILDING INTEGRATED GENERATION. ENERGY SOLUTIONS COME FROM LOCAL OPPORTUNITIES AT BOTH A SMALL AND COMMUNITY SCALE. THE TOWN SHOWN HERE MAKES USE OF – AMONG OTHERS – WIND, BIOMASS AND HYDRO RESOURCES. NATURAL GAS, WHERE NEEDED, CAN BE DEPLOYED IN A HIGHLY EFFICIENT MANNER.

city

1. PHOTOVOLTAIC, SOLAR FAÇADES WILL BE A DECORATIVE ELEMENT ON OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS WILL BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE AND IMPROVED DESIGN WILL ENABLE ARCHITECTS TO USE THEM MORE WIDELY. 2. RENOVATION CAN CUT ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF OLD BUILDINGS BY AS MUCH AS 80% - WITH IMPROVED HEAT INSULATION, INSULATED WINDOWS AND MODERN VENTILATION SYSTEMS.

references 26 SEE CHAPTER 10.

3. SOLAR THERMAL COLLECTORS PRODUCE HOT WATER FOR BOTH THEIR OWN AND NEIGHBOURING BUILDINGS. 4. EFFICIENT THERMAL POWER (CHP) STATIONS WILL COME IN A VARIETY OF SIZES - FITTING THE CELLAR OF A DETACHED HOUSE OR SUPPLYING WHOLE BUILDING COMPLEXES OR APARTMENT BLOCKS WITH POWER AND WARMTH WITHOUT LOSSES IN TRANSMISSION. 5. CLEAN ELECTRICITY FOR THE CITIES WILL ALSO COME FROM FARTHER AFIELD. OFFSHORE WIND PARKS AND SOLAR POWER STATIONS IN DESERTS HAVE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL.

A DEVELOPMENT PATHWAY

DE also includes stand-alone systems entirely separate from the public networks, for example heat pumps, solar thermal panels or biomass heating. These can all be commercialised at a domestic level to provide sustainable low emission heating. Although DE technologies can be considered ‘disruptive’ because they do not fit the existing electricity market and system, with appropriate changes they have the potential for exponential growth, promising ‘creative destruction’ of the existing energy sector.

for producing heat directly from renewable energy sources will limit the need for further expansion of CHP. the energy [r]evolution |

DE is connected to a local distribution network system, supplying homes and offices, rather than the high voltage transmission system. The proximity of electricity generating plant to consumers allows any waste heat from combustion processes to be piped to nearby buildings, a system known as cogeneration or combined heat and power. This means that nearly all the input energy is put to use, not just a fraction as with traditional centralised fossil fuel plant.

image GREENPEACE OPENS A SOLAR ENERGY WORKSHOP IN BOMA, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO. A MOBILE PHONE GETS CHARGED BY A SOLAR ENERGY POWERED CHARGER.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

4 the energy [r]evolution |

Overall, to achieve an economically attractive growth of renewable energy sources, the balanced and timely mobilisation of all technologies is essential. Such a mobilisation depends on the resource availability, cost reduction potential and technological maturity. And alongside technology driven solutions, lifestyle changes - like simply driving less and using more public transport – have a huge potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4.4 new business model

NEW BUSINESS MODEL

The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario will also result in a dramatic change in the business model of energy companies, utilities, fuel suppliers and the manufacturers of energy technologies. Decentralised energy generation and large solar or offshore wind arrays which operate in remote areas, without the need for any fuel, will have a profound impact on the way utilities operate in 2020 and beyond. While today the entire power supply value chain is broken down into clearly defined players, a global renewable power supply will inevitably change this division of roles and responsibilities. Table 4.1 provides an overview of today’s value chain and how it would change in a revolutionised energy mix. While today a relatively small number of power plants, owned and operated by utilities or their subsidiaries, are needed to generate the required electricity, the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario projects a future share of around 60 to 70% of small but numerous decentralised power plants performing the same task.

Ownership will therefore shift towards more private investors and away from centralised utilities. In turn, the value chain for power companies will shift towards project development, equipment manufacturing and operation and maintenance. Simply selling electricity to customers will play a smaller role, as the power companies of the future will deliver a total power plant to the customer, not just electricity. They will therefore move towards becoming service suppliers for the customer. The majority of power plants will also not require any fuel supply, with the result that mining and other fuel production companies will lose their strategic importance. The future pattern under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario will see more and more renewable energy companies, such as wind turbine manufacturers, also becoming involved in project development, installation and operation and maintenance, whilst utilities will lose their status. Those traditional energy supply companies which do not move towards renewable project development will either lose market share or drop out of the market completely. rural electrification27 Energy is central to reducing poverty, providing major benefits in the areas of health, literacy and equity. More than a quarter of the world’s population has no access to modern energy services. In sub-Saharan Africa, 80% of people have no electricity supply. For cooking and heating, they depend almost exclusively on burning biomass – wood, charcoal and dung.

table 4.1: power plant value chain

TASK & MARKET PLAYER

STATUS QUO

(LARGE SCALE) PROJECT INSTALLATION GENERATION DEVELOPMENT

PLANT OWNER

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

Very few new power plants + central planning

large scale generation in the hand of few IPP’s & utilities

many smaller power plants + decentralized planning

large number of players e.g. IPP’s, utilities, private consumer, building operators

FUEL SUPPLY

DISTRIBUTION

global mining grid operation operations still in the hands of utilities

MARKET PLAYER

Utility Mining company Component manufacturer Engineering companies & project developers

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION POWER MARKET MARKET PLAYER

Utility Mining company Component manufacturer Engineering companies & project developers 32

no fuel needed (except biomass)

grid operation under state control

SALES

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development argues that “to implement the goal accepted by the international community of halving the proportion of people living on less than US $1 per day by 2015, access to affordable energy services is a prerequisite”. the role of sustainable, clean renewable energy To achieve the dramatic emissions cuts needed to avoid climate change – in the order of 80% in OECD countries by 2050 – will require a massive uptake of renewable energy. The targets for renewable energy must be greatly expanded in industrialised countries both to substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear generation and to create the necessary economies of scale necessary for global expansion. Within the Energy [R]evolution scenario we assume that modern renewable energy sources, such as solar collectors, solar cookers and modern forms of bio energy will replace inefficient, traditional biomass use. step 3: optimised integration – renewables 24/7 A complete transformation of the energy system will be necessary to accommodate the significantly higher shares of renewable energy expected under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario. The grid network of cables and sub-stations that brings electricity to our homes and factories was designed for large, centralised generators running at huge loads, usually providing what is known as ‘baseload’ power. Renewable energy has had to fit in to this system as an additional slice of the energy mix and adapt to the conditions under which the grid currently operates. If the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario is to be realised, this will have to change. Some critics of renewable energy say it is never going to be able to provide enough power for our current energy use, let alone for the projected growth in demand. This is because it relies mostly on natural resources, such as the wind and sun, which are not available 24/7. Existing practice in a number of countries has already shown

We already have sun, wind, geothermal sources and running rivers available right now, whilst ocean energy, biomass and efficient gas turbines are all set to make a massive contribution in the future. Clever technologies can track and manage energy use patterns, provide flexible power that follows demand through the day, use better storage options and group customers together to form ‘virtual batteries’. With all these solutions we can secure the renewable energy future needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Renewable energy 24/7 is technically and economically possible, it just needs the right policy and the commercial investment to get things moving and ‘keep the lights on’.28 4.5 the new electricity grid The electricity ‘grid’ is the collective name for all the cables, transformers and infrastructure that transport electricity from power plants to the end users. In all networks, some energy is lost as it is travels, but moving electricity around within a localised distribution network is more efficient and results in less energy loss. The existing electricity transmission (main grid lines) and distribution system (local network) was mainly designed and planned 40 to 60 years ago. All over the developed world, the grids were built with large power plants in the middle and high voltage alternating current (AC) transmission power lines connecting up to the areas where the power is used. A lower voltage distribution network then carries the current to the final consumers. This is known as a centralised grid system, with a relatively small number of large power stations mostly fuelled by coal or gas. In the future we need to change the grid network so that it does not rely on large conventional power plants but instead on clean energy from a range of renewable sources. These will typically be smaller scale power generators distributed throughout the grid. A localised distribution network is more efficient and avoids energy losses during long distance transmission. There will also be some concentrated supply from large renewable power plants. Examples of these large generators of the future are the massive wind farms already being built in Europe’s North Sea and the plan for large areas of concentrating solar mirrors to generate energy in Southern Europe or Northern Africa. The challenge ahead is to integrate new generation sources and at the same time phase out most of the large scale conventional power plants, while still keeping the lights on. This will need novel types of grids and an innovative power system architecture involving both new technologies and new ways of managing the network to ensure a balance between fluctuations in energy demand and supply. The key elements of this new power system architecture are micro grids, smart grids and an efficient large scale super grid. The three types of system will support and interconnect with each other (see Figure 4.3). references 27 ‘SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION: AN ACTION PLAN’, IT POWER/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, 2002.

28 THE ARGUMENTS AND TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS OUTLINED HERE ARE EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL/GREENPEACE REPORT, “[R]ENEWABLES 24/7: INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SAVE THE CLIMATE”, NOVEMBER 2009.

THE NEW ELECTRICITY GRID

The Millennium Development Goal of halving global poverty by 2015 will not be reached without adequate energy to increase production, income and education, create jobs and reduce the daily grind involved in having to just survive. Halving hunger will not come about without energy for more productive growing, harvesting, processing and marketing of food. Improving health and reducing death rates will not happen without energy for the refrigeration needed for clinics, hospitals and vaccination campaigns. The world’s greatest child killer, acute respiratory infection, will not be tackled without dealing with smoke from cooking fires in the home. Children will not study at night without light in their homes. Clean water will not be pumped or treated without energy.

that this is wrong, and further adaptations to how the grid network operates will enable the large quantities of renewable generating capacity envisaged in this report to be successfully integrated.

the energy [r]evolution |

Poor people spend up to a third of their income on energy, mostly to cook food. Women in particular devote a considerable amount of time to collecting, processing and using traditional fuel for cooking. In India, two to seven hours each day can be devoted to the collection of cooking fuel. This is time that could be spent on child care, education or income generation. The World Health Organisation estimates that 2.5 million women and young children in developing countries die prematurely each year from breathing the fumes from indoor biomass stoves.

image THE TRUCK DROPS ANOTHER LOAD OF WOOD CHIPS AT THE BIOMASS POWER PLANT IN LELYSTAD, THE NETHERLANDS.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

4 the energy [r]evolution |

A major role in the construction and operation of this new system architecture will be played by the IT sector. Because a smart grid has power supplied from a diverse range of sources and locations it relies on the gathering and analysis of a large quantity of data. This requires software, hardware and networks that are capable of delivering data quickly, and responding to the information that they contain. Providing energy users with real time data about their energy consumption patterns and the appliances in their buildings, for example, helps them to improve their energy efficiency, and will allow appliances to be used at a time when a local renewable supply is plentiful, for example when the wind is blowing.

HYBRID SYSTEMS

There are numerous IT companies offering products and services to manage and monitor energy. These include IBM, Fujitsu, Google, Microsoft and Cisco. These and other giants of the telecommunications and technology sector have the power to make the grid smarter, and to move us faster towards a clean energy future. Greenpeace has initiated the ‘Cool IT’ campaign to put pressure on the IT sector to make such technologies a reality. 4.6 hybrid systems The developed world has extensive electricity grids supplying power to nearly 100% of the population. In parts of the developing world, however, many rural areas get by with unreliable grids or polluting electricity, for example from stand-alone diesel generators. This is also very expensive for small communities. The electrification of rural areas that currently have no access to any power system cannot go ahead as it has in the past. A standard approach in developed countries has been to extend the grid by installing high or medium voltage lines, new substations and a low voltage distribution grid. But when there is low potential electricity demand, and long distances between the existing grid and rural areas, this method is often not economically feasible. Electrification based on renewable energy systems with a hybrid mix of sources is often the cheapest as well as the least polluting alternative. Hybrid systems connect renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power to a battery via a charge controller, which stores the generated electricity and acts as the main power supply.

elements in the new power system architecture A hybrid system based on more than one generating source, for example solar and wind power, is a method of providing a secure supply in remote rural areas or islands, especially where there is no grid-connected electricity. This is particularly appropriate in developing countries. In the future, several hybrid systems could be connected together to form a micro grid in which the supply is managed using smart grid techniques. A smart grid is an electricity grid that connects decentralised renewable energy sources and cogeneration and distributes power highly efficiently. Advanced communication and control technologies such as smart electricity meters are used to deliver electricity more cost effectively, with lower greenhouse intensity and in response to consumer needs. Typically, small generators such as wind turbines, 34

Back-up supply typically comes from a fossil fuel, for example in a wind-battery-diesel or PV-battery-diesel system. Such decentralised hybrid systems are more reliable, consumers can be involved in their operation through innovative technologies and they can make best use of local resources. They are also less dependent on large scale infrastructure and can be constructed and connected faster, especially in rural areas. Finance can often be an issue for relatively poor rural communities wanting to install such hybrid renewable systems. Greenpeace has therefore developed a model in which projects are bundled together in order to make the financial package large enough to be eligible for international investment support. In the Pacific region, for example, power generation projects from a number of islands, an entire island state such as the Maldives or even several island states could be bundled into one project package. This would make it large enough for funding as an international project by OECD countries. Funding could come from a mixture of a feed-in tariff and a fund which covers the extra costs, as proposed in the “Renewables 24/7” report - known as a Feed-in Tariff Support Mechanism. In terms of project planning, it is essential that the communities themselves are directly involved in the process. 4.7 smart grids The task of integrating renewable energy technologies into existing power systems is similar in all power systems around the world, whether they are large centralised networks or island systems. The main aim of power system operation is to balance electricity consumption and generation. Thorough forward planning is needed to ensure that the available production can match demand at all times. In addition to balancing supply and demand, the power system must also be able to: • Fulfil defined power quality standards – voltage/frequency – which may require additional technical equipment, and • Survive extreme situations such as sudden interruptions of supply, for example from a fault at a generation unit or a breakdown in the transmission system.

solar panels or fuels cells are combined with energy management to balance out the load of all the users on the system. Smart grids are a way to integrate massive amounts of renewable energy into the system and enable the decommissioning of older centralised power stations. A super grid is a large scale electricity grid network linking together a number of countries, or connecting areas with a large supply of renewable electricity to an area with a large demand ideally based on more efficient HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) cables. An example of the former would be the interconnection of all the large renewable based power plants in the North Sea. An example of the latter would be a connection between Southern Europe and Africa so that renewable energy could be exported from an area with a large renewable resource to urban centres where there is high demand.

image THE WIND TURBINES ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFSHORE WINDFARM AT MIDDELGRUNDEN WHICH IS CLOSE TO COPENHAGEN, DENMARK.

figure 4.3: overview of the future power system with high penetration of renewables

4 the energy [r]evolution |

North Sea wind turbines and offshore supergrid

SMART GRIDS

North Sea wind turbines and offshore supergrid

CITY SMART GRID

CITY

SMART GRID

NEW HVDC SUPERGRID

existing AC system

CITY SMART GRID

CITY

CITY SMART GRID

CITY

SMART GRID

Smart grid using micro grids and virtual power plants DISTRIBUTED GENERATION GRID 3 x 20kW wind turbine

CSP in Southern Europe and Africa

1kW vertical wind turbine

90kW solar PV

APP MINIGRID 30kW gas 23kW turbine solar PV

2 x 60kW gas turbine

64kW test load bank

power grid

minigrid control room

VIRTUAL POWER STATION MICROGRID 16kWh battery bank +

1kW solar PV

1kW wind turbine

site loads

source ENERGYNAUTICS

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

4 the energy [r]evolution | SMART GRIDS

Integrating renewable energy by using a smart grid means moving away from the issue of baseload power and towards the question as to whether the supply is flexible or inflexible. In a smart grid a portfolio of flexible energy providers can follow the load during both day and night (for example, solar plus gas, geothermal, wind and demand management) without blackouts.

To develop a power system based almost entirely on renewable energy sources will require a new overall power system architecture, including smart grid technology. This concept will need substantial amounts of further work to fully emerge.29 Figure 4.4 shows a simplified graphic representation of the key elements in future renewable-based power systems using smart grid technology.

A number of European countries have already shown that it is possible to integrate large quantities of variable renewable power generation into the grid network and achieve a high percentage of the total supply. In Denmark, for example, the average supplied by wind power is about 20%, with peaks of more than 100% of demand. On those occasions surplus electricity is exported to neighbouring countries. In Spain, a much larger country with a higher demand, the average supplied by wind power is 14%, with peaks of more than 50%.

A range of options are available to enable the large-scale integration of variable renewable energy resources into the power supply system. These include demand side management, the concept of a Virtual Power Plant and a number of choices for the storage of power.

Until now renewable power technology development has put most effort into adjusting its technical performance to the needs of the existing network, mainly by complying with grid codes, which cover such issues as voltage frequency and reactive power. However, the time has come for the power systems themselves to better adjust to the needs of variable generation. This means that they must become flexible enough to follow the fluctuations of variable renewable power, for example by adjusting demand via demand-side management and/or deploying storage systems. The future power system will no longer consist of a few centralised power plants but instead of tens of thousands of generation units such as solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable generation, partly distributed in the distribution network, partly concentrated in large power plants such as offshore wind parks. The trade off is that power system planning will become more complex due to the larger number of generation assets and the significant share of variable power generation causing constantly changing power flows. Smart grid technology will be needed to support power system planning. This will operate by actively supporting day-ahead forecasts and system balancing, providing real-time information about the status of the network and the generation units, in combination with weather forecasts. It will also play a significant role in making sure systems can meet the peak demand at all times and make better use of distribution and transmission assets, thereby keeping the need for network extensions to the absolute minimum.

The level and timing of demand for electricity can be managed by providing consumers with financial incentives to reduce or shut off their supply at periods of peak consumption. This system is already used for some large industrial customers. A Norwegian power supplier even involves private household customers by sending them a text message with a signal to shut down. Each household can decide in advance whether or not they want to participate. In Germany, experiments are being conducted with time flexible tariffs so that washing machines operate at night and refrigerators turn off temporarily during periods of high demand. This type of demand side management has been simplified by advances in communications technology. In Italy, for example, 30 million innovative electricity counters have been installed to allow remote meter reading and control of consumer and service information. Many household electrical products or systems, such as refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, storage heaters, water pumps and air conditioning, can be managed either by temporary shut-off or by rescheduling their time of operation, thus freeing up electricity load for other uses and dovetailing it with variations in renewable supply. A Virtual Power Plant (VPP) interconnects a range of real power plants (for example solar, wind and hydro) as well as storage options distributed in the power system using information technology. A real life example of a VPP is the Combined Renewable Energy Power Plant developed by three German companies.30 This system interconnects and controls 11 wind power plants, 20 solar power plants, four CHP plants based on biomass and a pumped storage unit, all geographically spread around Germany. The VPP combines the advantages of the various renewable energy sources by carefully monitoring (and anticipating through weather forecasts) when the wind turbines and solar modules will be generating electricity. Biogas and pumped storage units are then used to make up the difference, either delivering electricity as needed in order to balance short term fluctuations or temporarily storing it.31 Together the combination ensures sufficient electricity supply to cover demand.

references 29 SEE ALSO ECOGRID PHASE 1 SUMMARY REPORT, AVAILABLE AT: HTTP://WWW.ENERGINET.DK/NR/RDONLYRES/8B1A4A06-CBA3-41DA-9402B56C2C288FB0/0/ECOGRIDDK_PHASE1_SUMMARYREPORT.PDF 30 SEE ALSO HTTP://WWW.KOMBIKRAFTWERK.DE/INDEX.PHP?ID=27 31 SEE ALSO HTTP://WWW.SOLARSERVER.DE/SOLARMAGAZIN/ANLAGEJANUAR2008_E.HTML

image CHECKING THE SOLAR PANELS ON TOP OF THE GREENPEACE POSITIVE ENERGY TRUCK IN BRAZIL.

figure 4.4: the smart-grid vision for the energy [r]evolution A VISION FOR THE FUTURE – A NETWORK OF INTEGRATED MICROGRIDS THAT CAN MONITOR AND HEAL ITSELF.

4 the energy [r]evolution |

HOUSES WITH SOLAR PANELS

SMART GRIDS

ISOLATED MICROGRID

OFFICES WITH SOLAR PANELS

CENTRAL POWER PLANT

WIND FARM

INDUSTRIAL PLANT

•• •

PROCESSORS EXECUTE SPECIAL PROTECTION SCHEMES IN MICROSECONDS SENSORS ON ‘STANDBY’ – DETECT FLUCTUATIONS AND DISTURBANCES, AND CAN SIGNAL FOR AREAS TO BE ISOLATED SENSORS ‘ACTIVATED’ – DETECT FLUCTUATIONS AND DISTURBANCES, AND CAN SIGNAL FOR AREAS TO BE ISOLATED SMART APPLIANCES CAN SHUT OFF IN RESPONSE TO FREQUENCY FLUCTUATIONS DEMAND MANAGEMENT USE CAN BE SHIFTED TO OFF-PEAK TIMES TO SAVE MONEY GENERATORS ENERGY FROM SMALL GENERATORS AND SOLAR PANELS CAN REDUCE OVERALL DEMAND ON THE GRID STORAGE ENERGY GENERATED AT OFF-PEAK TIMES COULD BE STORED IN BATTERIES FOR LATER USE DISTURBANCE IN THE GRID

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

4 the energy [r]evolution |

A number of mature and emerging technologies are viable options for storing electricity. Of these, pumped storage can be considered the most established technology. Pumped storage is a type of hydroelectric power station that can store energy. Water is pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation during times of low cost, off-peak electricity. During periods of high electrical demand, the stored water is released through turbines. Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, roughly 70 to 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained when it is released. Pumped storage plants can also respond to changes in the power system load demand within seconds.

SUPER GRIDS

Another way of ‘storing’ electricity is to use it to directly meet the demand from electric vehicles. The number of electric cars and trucks is expected to increase dramatically under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario. The Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) concept, for example, is based on electric cars equipped with batteries that can be charged during times when there is surplus renewable generation and then discharged to supply peaking capacity or ancillary services to the power system while they are parked. During peak demand times cars are often parked close to main load centres, for instance outside factories, so there would be no network issues. Within the V2G concept a Virtual Power Plant would be built using ICT technology to aggregate the electric cars participating in the relevant electricity markets and to meter the charging/de-charging activities. In 2009 the EDISON demonstration project was launched to develop and test the infrastructure for integrating electric cars into the power system of the Danish island of Bornholm.

4.8 the super grid A Greenpeace simulation study has shown that extreme situations with low solar radiation and little wind in many parts of Europe are not frequent, but they can occur. The power system, even with massive amounts of renewable energy, must be adequately designed to cope with such an event. A key element in achieving this is through the construction of new onshore and offshore super grids. In the Energy Revolution scenario it is assumed that about 70% of all generation is distributed and located close to load centres. The remaining 30% will be large scale renewable generation such as large offshore wind farms or large arrays of concentrating solar power plants. A North Sea offshore super grid, for example, would enable the efficient integration of renewable energy into the power system across the whole North Sea region, linking the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. By aggregating power generation from wind farms spread across the whole area, periods of very low or very high power flows would be reduced to a negligible amount. A dip in wind power generation in one area would be balanced by higher production in another area, even hundreds of kilometres away. Over a year, an installed offshore wind power capacity of 68.4 GW in the North Sea would be able to generate an estimated 247 TWh of electricity. The cost of developing the grid is expected to be between €15 and 20 billion. This investment would not only allow the broad integration of renewable energy but also unlock unprecedented power trading opportunities and cost efficiency. In a recent example, a new 600 kilometre-long power line between Norway and the Netherlands cost €600 million to build, but is already generating a daily cross-border trade valued at €800,000.32

reference 32 GREENPEACE REPORT, ‘NORTH SEA ELECTRICITY GRID [R]EVOLUTION’, SEPTEMBER 2008.

[R]enewables 24/7 – towards 100% renewables

• In an extreme winter event of high demand and low solar power production in most parts of Europe, combined with low wind power production in Central and Northern Europe (as in January 1997), electricity would have to be transmitted from Northern Europe (mainly hydro power) and from Southern Europe (mainly solar power) into Central Europe. For this to be achieved by renewable energy, a new super grid would be needed. • In an extreme autumn event (as in November 1987), with very low solar radiation and low wind production, reinforcement of the existing high voltage grid, as well as installation of the proposed super grid, would be sufficient. To be able to provide a reliable, secure power supply to Europe, taking into account extreme weather and high demand scenarios, the study looked into grid expansion and optimization possibilities for the needed infrastructure. Part 1 has been published in February 2010 and part 2 in February 2011. 1.In 2030, gas plants provide most of the non-renewable electricity and serve as a flexible backup for wind and solar power. Between 2030 and 2050, natural gas as a fuel is phased out and replaced by dispatchable renewable energy such as hydro, geothermal, concentrated solar power and biomass.

3.By 2030, some €70 billion investments are required to secure electricity supply 24 hours a day, 7days a week with 68% renewable power in the mix. By investing another €28 billion on expanding the grids by 2030, the constraining of renewable sources could be reduced to 1%. The total grid cost is limited to less than 1% of the electricity bill. 4.Between 2030 and 2050, two different scenario’s have been analysed in this report. In a ‘High Grid’ scenario, the European grid could be connected to North Africa to take advantage of the intense solar radiation. This would lower the cost to produce electricity, but increases investments in transmission to €466bn between 2030 and 2050. In the ‘Low Grid’ scenario, more renewable energy is produced closer to regions with a high demand (large cities and heavy industry). This lowers the investment in transmission to only €23 billion for 2030-50, but increases the costs to produce electricity because more solar panels will be installed in less sunny regions. In between those two very distinct High and Low Grid scenarios, many intermediate combinations are possible. 5.At the moment, wind turbines are often regularly switched off during periods of high electricity supply, to give priority to nuclear or coal fired power, which is a bad decision for the planet. To win the battle of the grids, priority dispatching for renewable energy on the European grids will be needed, including priority on the interconnections between countries, because their surplus production can be exported to other regions with a net demand. 6.Economic consequences for nuclear, coal and gas plants: • Even if technical adaptations would enable coal and nuclear plants to become more flexible and ‘fit in’ the renewable mix, they would be needed for only 46% of the year by 2030 and further decreasing afterwards, making investments in a nuclear reactor of some €6 billion highly uneconomic. Building a new nuclear reactor is a very high risk for investors. • In a ‘Dirty Scenario’, of the future with a share of inflexible coal and nuclear plants in 2030 close to what is installed today, the renewable sources will have to be switched off more often and the cost of this lost renewable production will raise to €15 billion/year. • Flexible gas plants are less capital intensive than nuclear plants and could thus still economically produce at a load factor of 46% by 2030, functioning as a backup for variable renewable power. After 2030, gas plants can be converted progressively to use biogas, avoiding stranded investments in both production plants and gas grids.

SUPER GRIDS

• In an extreme summer event of high demand and extremely low wind (as in August 2003), the available power from locally distributed solar PV would be enough to compensate for the lack of wind. Therefore no change to the existing grid would be needed.

2.Because coal and nuclear plants are too inflexible and cannot sufficiently respond to variations in wind or solar generation, 90% of the existing coal and nuclear plants have to be phased out by 2030, and by 2050 they are completely phased out.

the energy [r]evolution |

The Greenpeace report “[R]enewables 24/7” examined weather patterns across Europe in order to work out what kind of grid technology would be needed to achieve a secure power supply based on the Energy Revolution energy mix, which relies extensively on variable sources such as wind and solar power. Although we know that there are technically enough resources to power the whole continent with renewables – solar in the south, wind in the north plus geothermal, biomass and cogeneration – a new network of interactive smart grids will be needed, in turn interconnected with a ‘super grid’ providing transmission capacity for large scale renewables such as offshore wind and concentrated solar power. This new grid design also needs to take into account rare events when weather-based renewable energy in certain areas drops below the supply level needed. To evaluate the frequency of extreme events, the study analysed Europe-wide wind data for the last 30 years. The resulting simulations showed that problems could occur particularly in winter, when electricity demand is high and solar production low. Over the last 30 years, however, the potential power production from wind during the winter months in the Energy [R]evolution scenario would have dropped below 50 GW for only 0.4% of the time, equivalent to once a year if the average duration of the event was 12 hours. In terms of the balance between wind and solar production, the study selected key ‘extreme events’ and created a model of power supply based on the Energy [R]evolution supply mix. The results were:

image A WOMAN STUDIES SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS AT THE BAREFOOT COLLEGE. THE COLLEGE SPECIALISES IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDES A SPACE WHERE STUDENTS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD CAN LEARN TO UTILISE RENEWABLE ENERGY. THE STUDENTS TAKE THEIR NEW SKILLS HOME AND GIVE THEIR VILLAGES CLEAN ENERGY.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

scenarios for a future energy supply GLOBAL

SCENARIO BACKGROUND

COST OF CO2 EMISSIONS

PRICE PROJECTIONS FOR FOSSIL FUELS AND BIOMASS

COST PROJECTIONS FOR EFFICIENT FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION

I eW

RB TU

N EI IN

A TS

I HA

.©

COST PROJECTIONS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

/VI

TH DI

“towards a “the technology sustainable global is here, all we need is political will.” energy supply system.” CHRIS JONES SUPORTER AUSTRALIA

Moving from principles to action on energy supply and climate change mitigation requires a long-term perspective. Energy infrastructure takes time to build up; new energy technologies take time to develop. Policy shifts often also need many years to take effect. Any analysis that seeks to tackle energy and environmental issues therefore needs to look ahead at least half a century.

It is important to note that the Reference Scenario in Hungary specific analysis has been developed differently to as above. For global trends, IEA data are appropriate enough, however, in the case of a certain country more precise numbers and policy analysis is required. Therefore we calculated with the recently published Renewable Energy Utilisation Action Plan, and the National Energy Strategy approved by the government in autumn 2011. The Reference Scenario thus authentically reflects the current policy efforts, and their projections over the next decades regarding the development of the energy sector. As the Action Plan contains a detailed path only until 2020, and the strategy only until 2030, we have extrapolated the data until 2050 in order to make it comparable to the Energy [R]evolution scenarios. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario has a key target to reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions down to a level of around 10 Gigatonnes per year by 2050 in order to keep the increase in global temperature under +2°C. A second objective is the global phasing out of nuclear energy. First published in 2007, then updated and expanded in 2008, this latest revision also serves as a baseline for the more ambitious “Advanced” Energy [R]evolution scenario. To achieve its targets, the scenario is characterised by significant efforts to fully exploit the large potential for energy efficiency, using currently available best practice technology. At the same time, all cost-effective renewable energy sources are used for heat and electricity generation as well as the production of bio fuels. The general framework parameters for population and GDP growth remain unchanged from the Reference Scenario.

Given the enormous and diverse potential for renewable power, the Advanced scenario also foresees a shift in the use of renewables from power to heat. Assumptions for the heating sector therefore include a faster expansion of the use of district heat and hydrogen and more electricity for process heat in the industry sector. More geothermal heat pumps are also used, which leads – combined with a larger share of electric drives in the transport sector – to a higher overall electricity demand. In addition a faster expansion of solar and geothermal heating systems is assumed. In all sectors, the latest market development projections of the renewables industry34 have been taken into account. In developing countries in particular, a shorter operational lifetime for coal power plants, of 20 instead of 40 years, has been assumed in order to allow a faster uptake of renewables. The speedier introduction of electric vehicles, combined with the implementation of smart grids and faster expansion of super grids (about ten years ahead of the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario) - allows a higher share of fluctuating renewable power generation (photovoltaic and wind) to be employed. The 30% mark for the proportion of renewables in the global energy supply is therefore passed just before 2030 (also ten years ahead). The global quantities of biomass and large hydro power remain the same in both Energy [R]evolution scenarios, for reasons of sustainability. In the analysis of Hungary, we have decreased the share of biomass compared to the Basic scenario. These scenarios by no means claim to predict the future; they simply describe three potential development pathways out of the broad range of possible ‘futures’. The Energy [R]evolution Scenarios are designed to indicate the efforts and actions required to achieve their ambitious objectives and to illustrate the options we have at hand to change our energy supply system into one that is sustainable.

references 33 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, ‘WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2007’, 2007. 34 SEE EREC, RE-THINKING 2050, GWEC, EPIA ET AL.

SCENARIO BACKGROUND

The Reference Scenario is based on the reference scenario published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in World Energy Outlook 2009 (WEO 2009).33 This only takes existing international energy and environmental policies into account. Its assumptions include, for example, continuing progress in electricity and gas market reforms, the liberalisation of cross-border energy trade and recent policies designed to combat environmental pollution. The Reference scenario does not include additional policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the IEA’s projection only covers a time horizon up to 2030, it has also been extended by extrapolating its key macroeconomic and energy indicators forward to 2050. This provides a baseline for comparison with the Energy [R]evolution scenario.

The Advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario is aimed at an even stronger decrease in CO2 emissions, especially given the uncertainty that even 10 Gigatonnes might be too much to keep global temperature rises at bay. All general framework parameters such as population and economic growth remain unchanged. The efficiency pathway for industry and “other sectors” is also the same as in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario. What is different is that the Advanced scenario incorporates a stronger effort to develop better technologies to achieve CO2 reduction. So the transport sector factors in lower demand (compared to the Basic scenario), resulting from a change in driving patterns and a faster uptake of efficient combustion vehicles and – after 2025 – a larger share of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

scenarios for a future energy supply |

Scenarios are important in describing possible development paths, to give decision-makers an overview of future perspectives and to indicate how far they can shape the future energy system. Two different kinds of scenario are used here to characterise the wide range of possible pathways for a future energy supply system: a Reference Scenario, reflecting a continuation of current trends and policies, and the Energy [R]evolution Scenarios, which are designed to achieve a set of dedicated environmental policy targets.

image THE MARANCHON WIND TURBINE FARM IN GUADALAJARA, SPAIN IS THE LARGEST IN EUROPE WITH 104 GENERATORS, WHICH COLLECTIVELY PRODUCE 208 MEGAWATTS OF ELECTRICITY, ENOUGH POWER FOR 590,000 PEOPLE, ANUALLY.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

5.1 scenario background

5 scenarios for a future energy supply |

The scenarios in this report were jointly commissioned by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, part of the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The supply scenarios were calculated using the MESAP/PlaNet simulation model adopted in the previous Energy [R]evolution studies.35 Some detailed analyses carried out during preparation of the 2008 Energy [R]evolution study were also used as input to this update. The energy demand projections were developed for the 2008 study by Ecofys Netherlands, based on an analysis of the future potential for energy efficiency measures. The biomass potential, judged according to Greenpeace sustainability criteria, has been developed especially for this scenario by the German Biomass Research Centre. The future development pathway for car technologies is based on a special report produced in 2008 by the Institute of Vehicle Concepts, DLR for Greenpeace International. These studies are described briefly below.

COST PROJECTIONS

• Energy efficiency study The aim of the Ecofys study was to develop a low energy demand scenario for the period 2005 to 2050 covering the world regions as defined in the IEA’s World Energy Outlook report series. Calculations were made for each decade from 2010 onwards. Energy demand was split up into electricity and fuels. The sectors which were taken into account were industry, transport and ‘other’ consumers, including households and services. Under the low energy demand scenario, worldwide final energy demand is reduced by 38% in 2050 in comparison to the Reference scenario, resulting in a final energy demand of 376 EJ (exajoules). The energy savings are fairly equally distributed over the three sectors of industry, transport and other uses. The most important energy saving options are efficient passenger and freight transport and improved heat insulation and building design. The resulting demand projections of this study have been updated on the basis of the reference scenario from IEA´s World Energy Outlook 2009.

A combination of ambitious efforts towards higher efficiency in vehicle technologies, a major switch to grid-connected electric vehicles and incentives for vehicle users to save carbon dioxide lead to the conclusion that it is possible to reduce LDV CO2 emissions from ‘well-to-wheel’ in 2050 by roughly 25%36 compared to 1990 and 40% compared to 2005. By 2050, in this scenario, 60% of the final energy used in road transport will still come from fossil sources, mainly gasoline and diesel. Renewable electricity will cover 25%, bio fuels 13% and hydrogen 2%. Total energy consumption will be reduced by 17% in 2050 compared to 2005, however, in spite of enormous increases in fuel use in some regions of the world. The peak in global CO2 emissions from transport occurs between 2010 and 2015. From 2010 onwards, new legislation in the US and Europe will contribute to breaking the upwards trend. From 2020, the effect of introducing grid-connected electric cars can be clearly seen. This study still forms the basis for the LDV development pathway in the updated Energy [R]evolution scenarios, but has been modified on the basis of changed statistical data for the new reference year 2007 as well as changes in the reference scenario from IEA´s World Energy Outlook 2009. • The global potential for sustainable bio energy As part of the Energy [R]evolution scenario, Greenpeace also commissioned the German Biomass Research Centre (the former Institute for Energy and Environment) to look at the worldwide potential for energy crops up to 2050. A summary of this report can be found in Chapter 9.

• The future for cars The Institute of Vehicle Concepts in Stuttgart, Germany has developed a global scenario for light duty vehicles (LDV) covering ten world regions. The aim was to produce a demanding but feasible scenario to lower global CO2 emissions from LDVs within the context of the overall objectives of this report. The approach takes into account a vast range of technical measures to reduce the energy consumption of vehicles, but also considers the dramatic increase in vehicle ownership and annual mileage taking place in developing countries. The major parameters are vehicle technology, alternative fuels, changes in sales of different vehicle sizes (segment split) and changes in vehicle kilometres travelled (modal split). The scenario assumes that a large share of renewable electricity will be available in the future.

reference 35 ‘ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION: A SUSTAINABLE WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK’, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, 2007 AND 2008.

36 THERE IS NO RELIABLE NUMBER AVAILABLE FOR GLOBAL LDV EMISSIONS IN 1990, SO A ROUGH ESTIMATE HAS BEEN MADE.

5.2 price projections for fossil fuels and biomass

Since the first Energy [R]evolution study was published in 2007, however, the actual price of oil has moved over €83/bbl for the first time, and in July 2008 reached a record high of more than €116/bbl. Although oil prices fell back to €83/bbl in September 2008 and around €66/bbl in April 2010, the projections in the IEA reference scenario might still be considered too conservative. Taking into account the growing global demand for oil we have assumed a price development path for fossil fuels based on the IEA WEO 2009 higher prices sensitivity case extrapolated forward to 2050 (see Table 5.1).

5.3 cost of CO2 emissions Assuming that a CO2 emissions trading system is established across all world regions in the longer term, the cost of CO2 allowances needs to be included in the calculation of electricity generation costs. Projections of emissions costs are even more uncertain than energy prices, however, and available studies span a broad range of future estimates. As in the previous Energy [R]evolution study we assume CO2 costs of €10/tCO2 in 2010, rising to €50/tCO2 by 2050. Additional CO2 costs are applied in Kyoto Protocol Non-Annex B (developing) countries only after 2020. table 5.2: assumptions on CO2 emissions cost development ($/tCO2)

COUNTRIES

Kyoto Annex B countries Non-Annex B countries

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50

table 5.1: development projections for fossil fuel prices in € 2005

Crude oil imports IEA WEO 2009 “Reference” IEA WEO 2007 / ETP 2008 USA EIA 2008 “Reference” USA EIA 2008 “High Price” Energy [R]evolution 2008 Energy [R]evolution 2010

UNIT

2000

2005

2007

2008

barrel barrel barrel barrel barrel barrel

28.39

41.38

62.07 57.20

80.43

GJ GJ GJ

4.14 3.06 5.05

Natural gas imports IEA WEO 2009 “Reference” United States Europe Japan LNG Energy [R]evolution 2010 United States Europe Japan LNG Hard coal imports OECD steam coal imports Energy [R]evolution 2010 IEA WEO 2009 “Reference”

Biomass (solid) Energy [R]evolution 2010 OECD Europe OECD Pacific and North America Other regions

GJ GJ GJ

2015

2020

2025

71.73 55.50

82.76

88.96

57.90 99.10 105.00 110.00 91.50 107.58

GJ GJ GJ

tonne tonne

2010

34.11

2030

2040

2050

14.98 18.21 20.52

19.64 21.54 24.25

95.17 60.10 68.30 115.00 120.00 115.86 124.13

1.92 3.72 3.74

2.68 5.21 5.24

7.20 9.01 11.03

6.36 9.13 10.40

7.74 10.56 12.00

8.76 11.43 12.95

9.92 12.24 13.85

1.92 3.72 3.74

2.68 5.21 5.24

7.20 9.01 11.04

6.93 11.62 13.25

8.85 13.71 15.59

10.26 14.89 16.86

11.90 15.96 18.07

41.05

57.47

99.80

6.2 2.7 2.2

6.4 2.8 2.3

96.12 112.06 115.45 118.09 132.41 142.59 75.35 86.20 88.65 90.54

6.8 3.1 2.9

7.6 3.1 2.9

8.3 3.6 3.3

8.5 3.9 3.8

8.7 4.3 4.1

source 2000-2030, IEA WEO 2009 HIGHER PRICES SENSITIVITY CASE FOR CRUDE OIL, GAS AND STEAM COAL; 2040-2050 AND OTHER FUELS, OWN ASSUMPTIONS.

COST PROJECTIONS FOR RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

As the supply of natural gas is limited by the availability of pipeline infrastructure, there is no world market price for gas. In most regions of the world the gas price is directly tied to the price of oil. Gas prices are therefore assumed to increase to €19.8-24/GJ by 2050.

For the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, the local coal price projections are assumed, which are significantly lower than world market price projections. Therefore fuel cost savings of renewable generation technologies and average generation costs for power and heat might be much higher, if the hard coal price is adjusted to a high price scenario of the world market.

scenarios for a future energy supply |

The recent dramatic fluctuations in global oil prices have resulted in slightly higher forward price projections for fossil fuels. Under the 2004 ‘high oil and gas price’ scenario from the European Commission, for example, an oil price of just €28 per barrel was assumed in 2030. More recent projections of oil prices by 2030 in the IEA’s WEO 2009 range from € 2008 66/bbl in the lower prices sensitivity case up to € 2008 124/bbl in the higher prices sensitivity case. The reference scenario in WEO 2009 predicts an oil price of € 2008 95/bbl.

image A MAINTENANCE WORKER MARKS A BLADE OF A WINDMILL AT GUAZHOU WIND FARM NEAR YUMEN IN GANSU PROVINCE, CHINA.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

5.4 cost projections for efficient fossil fuel generation and carbon capture and storage (CCS)

5 scenarios for a future energy supply |

While the fossil fuel power technologies in use today for coal, gas, lignite and oil are established and at an advanced stage of market development, further cost reduction potentials are assumed. The potential for cost reductions is limited, however, and will be achieved mainly through an increase in efficiency.37 There is much speculation about the potential for CCS to mitigate the effect of fossil fuel consumption on climate change, even though the technology is still under development.

COST PROJECTIONS

CCS is a means of trapping CO2 from fossil fuels, either before or after they are burned, and ‘storing’ (effectively disposing of) it in the sea or beneath the surface of the earth. There are currently three different methods of capturing CO2: ‘pre-combustion’, ‘postcombustion’ and ‘oxyfuel combustion’. However, development is at a very early stage and CCS will not be implemented - in the best case - before 2020 and will probably not become commercially viable as a possible effective mitigation option until 2030. Cost estimates for CCS vary considerably, depending on factors such as power station configuration, technology, fuel costs, size of project and location. One thing is certain, however: CCS is expensive. It requires significant funds to construct the power stations and the necessary infrastructure to transport and store carbon. The IPCC assesses costs at $12-62 per ton of captured CO2,38 while a recent US Department of Energy report found installing carbon capture systems to most modern plants resulted in a near doubling of costs.39 These costs are estimated to increase the price of electricity in a range from 21-91%.40

Pipeline networks will also need to be constructed to move CO2 to storage sites. This is likely to require a considerable outlay of capital.41 Costs will vary depending on a number of factors, including pipeline length, diameter and manufacture from corrosion-resistant steel, as well as the volume of CO2 to be transported. Pipelines built near population centres or on difficult terrain, such as marshy or rocky ground, are more expensive.42 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates a cost range for pipelines of €1-7/ton of CO2 transported. Storage and subsequent monitoring and verification costs are estimated by the IPCC to range from €0.4-7/tCO2 (for storage) and €0.1-0.25/tCO2 (for monitoring). The overall cost of CCS could therefore serve as a major barrier to its deployment.43 For the above reasons, CCS power plants are not included in our financial analysis. Table 5.3 summarises our assumptions on the technical and economic parameters of future fossil-fuelled power plant technologies. In spite of growing raw material prices, we assume that further technical innovation will result in a moderate reduction of future investment costs as well as improved power plant efficiencies. These improvements are, however, outweighed by the expected increase in fossil fuel prices, resulting in a significant rise in electricity generation costs.

table 5.3: development of efficiency and investment costs for selected power plant technologies POWER PLANT

2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

POWER PLANT

Coal-fired condensing power plant Efficiency (%) 45 46 48 Investment costs (€/kW) 1,092 1,018 985 Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs (€cent/kWh) 5.5 7.4 8.9 CO2 emissions a)(g/kWh) 744 728 697 Lignite-fired condensing power plant Efficiency (%) 41 43 44 Investment costs (€/kW) 1,299 1,192 1,142 Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs (€cent/kWh) 4.9 5.4 6.2 a) CO2 emissions (g/kWh) 975 929 908 Natural gas combined cycle Efficiency (%) 57 59 61 Investment costs (€/kW) 807 769 751 Electricity generation costs including CO2 emission costs (€cent/kWh) 6.2 8.7 10.5 CO2 emissions a)(g/kWh) 354 342 330 source DLR, 2010 a) CO2 EMISSIONS REFER TO POWER STATION OUTPUTS ONLY; LIFE-CYCLE EMISSIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED.

references 37 ‘GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING: CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE’, GOERNE, 2007. 38 ABANADES, J C ET AL., 2005, PG 10. 39 NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES, 2007.

40 RUBIN ET AL., 2005A, PG 40. 41 RAGDEN, P ET AL., 2006, PG 18. 42 HEDDLE, G ET AL., 2003, PG 17. 43 RUBIN ET AL., 2005B, PG 4444.

50 52 53 960 935 910 10.3 11.8 13.0 670 644 632 44.5 45 45 1,117 1,092 1,068 7.0 7.7 8.5 898 888 888 62 63 64 743 735 735 12.7 14.4 15.6 325 320 315

By using the individual advantages of the different technologies, and linking them with each other, a wide spectrum of available options can be developed to market maturity and integrated step by step into the existing supply structures. This will eventually provide a complementary portfolio of environmentally friendly technologies for heat and power supply and the provision of transport fuels. Many of the renewable technologies employed today are at a relatively early stage of market development. As a result, the costs of electricity, heat and fuel production are generally higher than those of competing conventional systems - a reminder that the external (environmental and social) costs of conventional power production are not included in market prices. It is expected, however, that compared with conventional technologies, large cost reductions can be achieved through technical advances, manufacturing improvements and large-scale production. Especially when developing long-term scenarios spanning periods of several decades, the dynamic trend of cost developments over time plays a crucial role in identifying economically sensible expansion strategies. To identify long-term cost developments, learning curves have been applied which reflect the correlation between cumulative production volumes of a particular technology and a reduction in its costs. For many technologies, the learning factor (or progress ratio) falls in the range between 0.75 for less mature systems to 0.95 and higher for well-established technologies. A learning factor of 0.9 means that costs are expected to fall by 10% every time the cumulative output from the technology doubles. Empirical data shows, for example, that the learning factor for PV solar modules has been fairly constant at 0.8 over 30 years whilst that for wind energy varies from 0.75 in the UK to 0.94 in the more advanced German market. Assumptions on future costs for renewable electricity technologies in the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario are derived from a review of learning curve studies, for example by Lena Neij and others,44 from the analysis of recent technology foresight and road mapping studies, including the European Commission funded NEEDS project (New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability)45 or the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, projections by the European Renewable Energy Council published in April 2010 (“Re-Thinking 2050”) and discussions with experts from a wide range of different sectors of the renewable energy industry.

The worldwide PV market has been growing at over 40% per annum in recent years and the contribution it can make to electricity generation is starting to become significant. The importance of photovoltaics comes from its decentralised/ centralised character, its flexibility for use in an urban environment and huge potential for cost reduction. Development work is focused on improving existing modules and system components by increasing their energy efficiency and reducing material usage. Technologies like PV thin film (using alternative semiconductor materials) or dye sensitive solar cells are developing quickly and present a huge potential for cost reduction. The mature technology crystalline silicon, with a proven lifetime of 30 years, is continually increasing its cell and module efficiency (by 0.5% annually), whereas the cell thickness is rapidly decreasing (from 230 to 180 microns over the last five years). Commercial module efficiency varies from 14 to 21%, depending on silicon quality and fabrication process. The learning factor for PV modules has been fairly constant over the last 30 years, with a cost reduction of 20% each time the installed capacity doubles, indicating a high rate of technical learning. Assuming a globally installed capacity of 1,600 GW by between 2030 and 2040 in the basic Energy [R]evolution scenario, and with an electricity output of 2,600 TWh, we can expect that generation costs of around 5-10 euro cent/kWh (depending on the region) will be achieved. During the following five to ten years, PV will become competitive with retail electricity prices in many parts of the world, and competitive with fossil fuel costs by 2030. The Advanced Energy [R]evolution version shows faster growth, with PV capacity reaching 439 GW by 2020 – ten years ahead of the basic scenario.

COST PROJECTIONS FOR RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

The range of renewable energy technologies available today display marked differences in terms of their technical maturity, costs and development potential. Whereas hydro power has been widely used for decades, other technologies, such as the gasification of biomass, have yet to find their way to market maturity. Some renewable sources by their very nature, including wind and solar power, provide a variable supply, requiring a revised coordination with the grid network. But although in many cases these are ‘distributed’ technologies - their output being generated and used locally to the consumer - the future will also see large-scale applications in the form of offshore wind parks, photovoltaic power plants or concentrating solar power stations.

5.5.1 photovoltaics (pv)

scenarios for a future energy supply |

5.5 cost projections for renewable energy technologies

image FIRE BOAT RESPONSE CREWS BATTLE THE BLAZING REMNANTS OF THE OFFSHORE OIL RIG DEEPWATER HORIZON APRIL 21, 2010. MULTIPLE COAST GUARD HELICOPTERS, PLANES AND CUTTERS RESPONDED TO RESCUE THE DEEPWATER HORIZON’S 126 PERSON CREW.

table 5.4: photovoltaics (pv) cost assumptions 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

Energy [R]evolution 6 98 335 1,036 1,915 2,968 Global installed capacity (GW) 3,100 2,160 1,470 850 650 630 Investment costs (€/kWp) 55 31 13 11 9 Operation & maintenance 8 costs (€/kW/a) Advanced Energy [R]evolution 6 108 439 1,330 2,959 4,318 Global installed capacity (GW) 3,100 2,160 1,470 850 630 611 Investment costs (€/kWp) 55 31 13 11 9 Operation & maintenance 8 costs (€/kW/a)

references 44 NEIJ, L, ‘COST DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES FOR POWER GENERATION A STUDY BASED ON EXPERIENCE CURVES AND COMPLEMENTARY BOTTOM-UP ASSESSMENTS’, ENERGY POLICY 36 (2008), 2200-2211. 45 WWW.NEEDS-PROJECT.ORG

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

5 scenarios for a future energy supply |

5.5.2 concentrating solar power (CSP)

5.5.3 wind power

Solar thermal ‘concentrating’ power stations (CSP) can only use direct sunlight and are therefore dependent on high irradiation locations. North Africa, for example, has a technical potential which far exceeds local demand. The various solar thermal technologies (parabolic trough, power towers and parabolic dish concentrators) offer good prospects for further development and cost reductions. Because of their more simple design, ‘Fresnel’ collectors are considered as an option for additional cost trimming. The efficiency of central receiver systems can be increased by producing compressed air at a temperature of up to 1,000°C, which is then used to run a combined gas and steam turbine.

Within a short period of time, the dynamic development of wind power has resulted in the establishment of a flourishing global market. While favourable policy incentives have made Europe the main driver for the global wind market, in 2009 more than three quarters of the annual capacity installed was outside Europe. This trend is likely to continue. The boom in demand for wind power technology has nonetheless led to supply constraints. As a consequence, the cost of new systems has increased. Because of the continuous expansion of production capacities, the industry is already resolving the bottlenecks in the supply chain, however. Taking into account market development projections, learning curve analysis and industry expectations, we assume that investment costs for wind turbines will reduce by 30% for onshore and 50% for offshore installations up to 2050.

COST PROJECTIONS FOR RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

Thermal storage systems are a key component for reducing CSP electricity generation costs. The Spanish Andasol 1 plant, for example, is equipped with molten salt storage with a capacity of 7.5 hours. A higher level of full load operation can be realised by using a thermal storage system and a large collector field. Although this leads to higher investment costs, it reduces the cost of electricity generation. Depending on the level of irradiation and mode of operation, it is expected that long term future electricity generation costs of 6-10 euro cent/kWh can be achieved. This presupposes rapid market introduction in the next few years.

table 5.5: concentrating solar power (csp) cost assumptions 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

table 5.6: wind power cost assumptions 2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

Energy [R]evolution

1 25 105 324 647 1,002 Global installed capacity (GW) 6,000 4,615 4,174 3,528 3,476 3,443 Investment costs (€/kW)* 248 207 174 149 132 128 Operation & maintenance costs (€/kW/a)

Installed capacity (on+offshore) 95 407 878 1,733 2,409 2,943 Wind onshore Investment costs (€/kWp) 1,250 1,039 826 788 750 740 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 48 42 37 36 34 34 Wind offshore Investment costs (€/kWp) 2,400 1,821 1,274 1,208 1,101 1,080 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 137 127 94 80 73 69

Advanced Energy [R]evolution 1 28 225 605 1,173 1,643 Global installed capacity (GW) 6,000 4,615 4,174 3,476 3,443 3,410 Investment costs (€/kW)* 248 207 174 149 132 128 Operation & maintenance costs (€/kW/a) * INCLUDING HIGH TEMPERATURE HEAT STORAGE.

Advanced Energy [R]evolution Installed capacity (on+offshore) 95 494 1,140 2,241 3,054 3,754 Wind onshore Investment costs (€/kWp) 1,250 1,039 826 750 740 730 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 48 42 37 36 34 34 Wind offshore Investment costs (€/kWp) 2,400 1,821 1,274 1,208 1,101 1,080 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 137 127 94 80 73 69

5.5.4 biomass

table 5.7: biomass cost assumptions Energy [R]evolution

2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

5.5.5 geothermal Geothermal energy has long been used worldwide for supplying heat, and since the beginning of the last century for electricity generation. Geothermally generated electricity was previously limited to sites with specific geological conditions, but further intensive research and development work has enabled the potential areas to be widened. In particular the creation of large underground heat exchange surfaces - Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) - and the improvement of low temperature power conversion, for example with the Organic Rankine Cycle, open up the possibility of producing geothermal electricity anywhere. Advanced heat and power cogeneration plants will also improve the economics of geothermal electricity. As a large part of the costs for a geothermal power plant come from deep underground drilling, further development of innovative drilling technology is expected. Assuming a global average market growth for geothermal power capacity of 9% per year up to 2020, adjusting to 4% beyond 2030, the result would be a cost reduction potential of 50% by 2050:

table 5.8: geothermal cost assumptions 2007

Energy [R]evolution

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Biomass (electricity only) Global installed capacity (GW) 28 48 62 75 87 107 Investment costs (€/kW) 2,332 2,029 2,015 1,967 1,944 1,925 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 151 137 126 122 122 121 Biomass (CHP) Global installed capacity (GW) 18 67 150 261 413 545 Investment costs (€/kW) 4,345 3,521 3,080 2,690 2,479 2,355 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 334 288 224 195 180 171

Geothermal (electricity only) Global installed capacity (GW) 10 19 36 71 114 144 Investment costs (€/kW) 10,300 9,000 7,600 6,000 5,000 4,300 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 534 461 354 310 290 275 Geothermal (CHP) Global installed capacity (GW) 1 3 13 37 83 134 Investment costs (€/kW) 10,500 9,200 7,800 6,200 5,200 4,500 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 535 400 290 243 212 193

Advanced Energy [R]evolution

Biomass (electricity only) Global installed capacity (GW) 28 83 50 64 78 81 Investment costs (€/kW) 2,332 2,029 2,015 1,967 1,944 1,925 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 151 137 126 122 122 121 Biomass (CHP) Global installed capacity (GW) 18 65 150 265 418 540 Investment costs (€/kW) 4,345 3,521 3,080 2,690 2,479 2,355 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 334 288 224 195 180 171

Geothermal (electricity only) Global installed capacity (GW) 10 21 57 191 337 459 Investment costs (€/kW) 10,300 9,000 7,600 4,300 3,698 3,180 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 534 461 354 310 290 275 Geothermal (CHP) Global installed capacity (GW) 0 3 13 47 132 234 Investment costs (€/kW) 10,500 9,200 7,800 6,200 5,200 4,500 O&M costs (€/kW/a) 535 400 290 243 212 193

COST PROJECTIONS FOR RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

A large potential for exploiting modern technologies exists in Latin and North America, Europe and the Transition Economies, either in stationary appliances or the transport sector. In the long term Europe and the Transition Economies will realise 20-50% of the potential for biomass from energy crops, whilst biomass use in all the other regions will have to rely on forest residues, industrial wood waste and straw. In Latin America, North America and Africa in particular, an increasing residue potential will be available.

In other regions, such as the Middle East and all Asian regions, increased use of biomass is restricted, either due to a generally low availability or already high traditional use. For the latter, using modern, more efficient technologies will improve the sustainability of current usage and have positive side effects, such as reducing indoor pollution and the heavy workloads currently associated with traditional biomass use.

scenarios for a future energy supply |

The crucial factor for the economics of biomass utilisation is the cost of the feedstock, which today ranges from a negative cost for waste wood (based on credit for waste disposal costs avoided) through inexpensive residual materials to the more expensive energy crops. The resulting spectrum of energy generation costs is correspondingly broad. One of the most economic options is the use of waste wood in steam turbine combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Gasification of solid biomass, on the other hand, which opens up a wide range of applications, is still relatively expensive. In the long term it is expected that favourable electricity production costs will be achieved by using wood gas both in micro CHP units (engines and fuel cells) and in gas-and-steam power plants. Great potential for the utilisation of solid biomass also exists for heat generation in both small and large heating centres linked to local heating networks. Converting crops into ethanol and ‘bio diesel’ made from rapeseed methyl ester (RME) has become increasingly important in recent years, for example in Brazil, the USA and Europe. Processes for obtaining synthetic fuels from biogenic synthesis gases will also play a larger role.

image AERIAL VIEW OF THE WORLD’S LARGEST OFFSHORE WINDPARK IN THE NORTH SEA HORNS REV IN ESBJERG, DENMARK.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

• for conventional geothermal power, from 5.8 euro cent/kWh to about 1.6 euro cent/kWh;

• for EGS, despite the presently high figures (about 17 euro cent/kWh), electricity production costs - depending on the payments for heat supply - are expected to come down to around 4 euro cent/kWh in the long term.

scenarios for a future energy supply |

Because of its non-fluctuating supply and a grid load operating almost 100% of the time, geothermal energy is considered to be a key element in a future supply structure based on renewable sources. Up to now we have only used a marginal part of the potential. Shallow geothermal drilling, for example, makes possible the delivery of heating and cooling at any time anywhere, and can be used for thermal energy storage. 5.5.6 ocean energy

COST PROJECTIONS FOR RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

Ocean energy, particularly offshore wave energy, is a significant resource, and has the potential to satisfy an important percentage of electricity supply worldwide. Globally, the potential of ocean energy has been estimated at around 90,000 TWh/year. The most significant advantages are the vast availability and high predictability of the resource and a technology with very low visual impact and no CO2 emissions. Many different concepts and devices have been developed, including taking energy from the tides, waves, currents and both thermal and saline gradient resources. Many of these are in an advanced phase of R&D, large scale prototypes have been deployed in real sea conditions and some have reached premarket deployment. There are a few grid connected, fully operational commercial wave and tidal generating plants.

table 5.9: ocean energy cost assumptions

The cost of energy from initial tidal and wave energy farms has been estimated to be in the range of 15-55 euro cent/kWh, and for initial tidal stream farms in the range of 11-22 euro cent/kWh. Generation costs of 10-25 euro cent/kWh are expected by 2020. Key areas for development will include concept design, optimisation of the device configuration, reduction of capital costs by exploring the use of alternative structural materials, economies of scale and learning from operation. According to the latest research findings, the learning factor is estimated to be 10-15% for offshore wave and 5-10% for tidal stream. In the medium term, ocean energy has the potential to become one of the most competitive and cost effective forms of generation. In the next few years a dynamic market penetration is expected, following a similar curve to wind energy. Because of the early development stage any future cost estimates for ocean energy systems are uncertain. Present cost estimates are based on analysis from the European NEEDS project .46 5.5.7 hydro power Hydro power is a mature technology with a significant part of its global resource already exploited. There is still, however, some potential left both for new schemes (especially small scale run-off river projects with little or no reservoir impoundment) and for repowering of existing sites. The significance of hydro power is also likely to be encouraged by the increasing need for flood control and the maintenance of water supply during dry periods. The future is in sustainable hydro power which makes an effort to integrate plants with river ecosystems while reconciling ecology with economically attractive power generation.

table 5.10: hydro power cost assumptions

2007 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

Energy [R]evolution

0 9 29 73 168 303 Global installed capacity (GW) 5,972 3,221 2,322 1,786 1,491 1,328 Investment costs (€/kW) 298 171 97 74 62 Operation & maintenance 55 costs (€/kW/a)

Global installed capacity (GW) 922 1,043 1,206 1,307 1,387 1,438 2,239 2,370 2,443 2,553 2,645 2,726 Investment costs (€/kW) 91 95 102 106 110 113 Operation & maintenance costs (€/kW/a)

Advanced Energy [R]evolution

0 9 58 180 425 748 Global installed capacity (GW) 5,972 3,221 2,322 1,491 1,328 1,183 Investment costs (€/kW) 298 171 97 74 62 Operation & maintenance 55 costs (€/kW/a)

Global installed capacity (GW) 922 1,111 1,212 1,316 1,406 1,451 2,239 2,370 2,443 2,553 2,645 2,726 Investment costs (€/kW) 91 95 102 106 110 113 Operation & maintenance costs (€/kW/a)

reference 46 WWW.NEEDS-PROJECT.ORG

image A COW IN FRONT OF A BIOREACTOR IN THE BIOENERGY VILLAGE OF JUEHNDE. IT IS THE FIRST COMMUNITY IN GERMANY THAT PRODUCES ALL OF ITS ENERGY NEEDED FOR HEATING AND ELECTRICITY, WITH CO2 NEUTRAL BIOMASS.

5.5.8 summary of renewable energy cost development Figure 5.1 summarises the cost trends for renewable energy technologies as derived from the respective learning curves. It should be emphasised that the expected cost reduction is basically not a function of time, but of cumulative capacity, so dynamic market development is required. Most of the technologies will be able to reduce their specific investment costs to between 30% and 70% of current levels by 2020, and to between 20% and 60% once they have achieved full maturity (after 2040).

5 scenarios for a future energy supply |

figure 5.1: future development of renewable energy investment costs (NORMALISED TO CURRENT COST LEVELS) FOR

SUMMARY OF RENEWABLE COST DEVELOPEMNT

Reduced investment costs for renewable energy technologies lead directly to reduced heat and electricity generation costs, as shown in Figure 5.2. Generation costs today are around 8 to 25 euro cent/kWh (10-26 $cent/kWh) for the most important technologies, with the exception of photovoltaics. In the long term, costs are expected to converge at around 4 to 10 euro cent/kWh (5-12 $cent/kWh). These estimates depend on site-specific conditions such as the local wind regime or solar irradiation, the availability of biomass at reasonable prices or the credit granted for heat supply in the case of combined heat and power generation. figure 5.2: expected development of electricity generation costs

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

120

40 35

100

30 80

20 15

10 20

ct/kWh 0 2005

•• •• •• ••

2010

2020

2030

PV WIND ONSHORE WIND OFFSHORE BIOMASS POWER PLANT BIOMASS CHP GEOTHERMAL CHP

2040

2050

2005

•• •• •

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

PV WIND BIOMASS CHP GEOTHERMAL CHP CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL

CONCENTRATING SOLAR THERMAL OCEAN ENERGY

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 5.1: CO2 emissions reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

5 scenarios for a future energy supply | CO 2 EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS

CO2 OECD NORTH AMERICA

LATIN AMERICA

LEGEND REF mio t 100-75

75-50

50-25

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO CO2

25-0

% OF 1990 EMISSIONS IN THE 2050 ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

CO2

1000 KM

EMISSIONS TOTAL MILLION TONNES [mio t] | % OF 1990 EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS PER PERSON TONNES [t]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

E[R] %

2007

6,686H 165

2050

6,822

169

mio t

REF %

6,686 165 215M

2007

14.89H

14.89

2050

11.82H

0.37

CO2

2007 2050

E[R]

mio t

1,010

167M

1,010 167

2,006

332M

119L 20

2007

2.18

2050

3.34

0.20L

OECD EUROPE

MIDDLE EAST

REF mio t

CO2

E[R] %

2007

4,017M 100

2050

3,798

REF

mio t

4,017

100

215

2007

7.44

2050

6.61M

0.36

CHINA

CO2

E[R]

TRANSITION ECONOMIES REF

mio t

2007

1,374

234

1,374

234

2050

3,208

546

122

CO2

E[R]

REF

mio t

2007

5,852

261

5,852

261

2050

12,460H 555

925H

2007

6.79M

6.79

2007

4.38

2050

9.08

0.35

2050

8.74

0.65

CO2

E[R]

mio t

2007

2,650

2050

3,564

258

2007

7.79

2050

11.47

0.83H

5 scenarios for a future energy supply |

GLOBAL REF mio t

AFRICA

INDIA REF

CO2

E[R]

DEVELOPING ASIA REF

mio t

2007

881L

161

881

161

2050

1,622L 297

423

2007

0.91L

0.91

2050

0.81L

0.21

CO2

E[R]

REF

mio t

2007

1,307

222

1,307

222

2050

5,110

868

449

CO2

2007 2050

44,259 211

3,267 t

2007

4.1

2050

4.8

0.4

REF

mio t

2007

1,488

216

1,488

216

2050

3,846M 557

428

2007

1.12

2007

1.47

2050

3.17

0.31

2050

2.54

0.28

27,408 131

E[R] %

27,408 131

OECD PACIFIC

mio t

CO 2 EMISSIONS

CO2

E[R] %

CO2

E[R]

mio t

2007

2,144

136

2,144

136

2050

1,822

116

2007

10.70

2050

10.14

0.41M

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 5.2: results reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

5 scenarios for a future energy supply | RESULTS

SCENARIO

RESULTS OECD NORTH AMERICA

LATIN AMERICA

LEGEND REF PE PJ

> -50

> -20

> +10

> -40

> -10

> +20

> -30

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

> +30

2007 2050

E[R] EL TWh

> +50

% CHANGE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN THE ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO 2050 COMPARED TO CURRENT CONSUMPTION 2007

1000 KM

SHARE OF RENEWABLES % SHARE OF FOSSIL FUELS % SHARE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY % H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST PE PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION/DEMAND IN PETA JOULE [PJ] EL ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION/GENERATION IN TERAWATT HOURS [TWh]

REF EL TWh

PE PJ

115,758H 5,221

2007

129,374 7,917

70,227

2050

115,758H 5,221H

7,925

E[R] EL TWh

22,513L 998 40,874

2,480

PE PJ

EL TWh

22,513L 998 27,311

2,927

2007

70H

2050

57H

88H

> +40

PE PJ

2007

67M

2007

70L

28L

70L

28L

2050

59M

2050

40L

12L

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2040

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2030

OECD EUROPE

MIDDLE EAST

REF

E[R]

REF

PE PJ

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

2007

79,599

3,576

79,599

3,576

2007

2050

82,634

5,351

46,754

4,233

2050

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA E[R]

REF

PE PJ

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

21,372

715

21,372

715

51,281

2,404

27,475

2,786L

E[R]

REF

PE PJ

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

2007

83,922

3,319

83,922

3,319

2050

183,886H12,188H 107,104H 10,190H

PE PJ

2007 2050

E[R] EL TWh

48,111M 1,685 64,449

3,110

PE PJ

EL TWh

48,111M 1,685 34,710

2,438

2007

12M

2007

17M

2050

99H

2050

77L

2050

22M

2007

99H

97H

2007

2050

97H

2050

23H

10H

2050

2007

26H

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2030

2007

2050

NO NUCLEAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

REF PE PJ

2007 2050

E[R] EL TWh

490,229 19,773 783,458 46,542

480,861 43,922 %

2050

REF

E[R]

DEVELOPING ASIA REF

E[R]

PE PJ

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

2007

26,355

615L

26,355

615L

2007

25,159

2050

43,173

1,826L

35,805

2,490L

2050

77,7610M 4,918

PE PJ

REF

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

814

25,159

814

52,120

2007

2050

2007

2050

E[R]

REF

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

2007

31,903

978

31,903

978

5,062

2050

69,233

3,721

40,639

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

OECD PACIFIC

PE PJ

RESULTS

2007

INDIA

EL TWh

490,229 19,773

AFRICA

PE PJ

E[R]

PE PJ

EL TWh

PE PJ

EL TWh

2007

37,588

1,851M

37,588

1,851M

3,548

2050

40,793

2,626

21,299L 2,322

2007

48H

2007

2050

45H

79M

2050

93L

2050

73L

2050

98M

2007

2050

54L

20M

2050

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2025

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

12H

2050

24H

33H

scenarios for a future energy supply |

GLOBAL

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

key results of the hungary energy [r]evolution scenario HUNGARY

DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY DEMAND TO 2050

FUTURE INVESTMENT

DEVELOPMENT OF CO2 EMISSIONS

HEATING AND COOLING SUPPLY

PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION

STI M AM DRE NS/ JUE RGE ND BER L. © RP ANE OLA ge S ima

TRANSPORT

“Extracting energy from sustainable sources is a key question for the life quality of the future.” LÁSZLÓ SÓLYOM FORMER PRESIDENT OF HUNGARY

6.1 development of energy demand to 2050 The future development pathways for Hungary’s energy demand are shown in Figure 6.1. Under the Reference scenario, total primary energy demand in Hungary increases by 16% from the current 1,085 PJ/a to 1,288 PJ/a in 2050. The energy demand in 2050 under the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario decreases by 23% and 29% in the Advanced case, compared to current consumption. By 2050 it is expected to reach 867 PJ/a and 796 PJ/a respectively.

The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario introduces electric vehicles earlier and sees more freight and passenger transport shifting to electric trains and public transport. This leads to an electricity demand in the transport sector of 21 TWh/a in the Advanced scenario compared to 15 TWh/a in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario in 2050 and 13 TWh/a in the Reference scenario. In the transport sector, it is assumed under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario that energy demand will decrease to 117 PJ/a by 2050, saving more than 50% compared to the Reference scenario. This reduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficient vehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and by changes in mobility-related behaviour patterns.

6 key results | ENERGY DEMAND BY SECTOR

Under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, electricity demand in the industrial, residential & service and transport sectors is expected to grow more slowly than in the Reference scenario (see Figure 6.2). Efficiency measures in industry and other sectors avoid the generation of 23 to 24 TWh/a compared to the Reference scenario. This reduction in energy demand can be achieved in particular by introducing highly efficient electronic devices using the best available technology.

image WIND TURBINE AND POWER LINE, HUNGARY. image SOLAR PANEL GIVES CLEAN ENERGY FOR AN OLD HOUSE IN A HUNGARIAN NATIONAL PARK.

figure 6.1: projection of total final energy demand by sector under three scenarios

1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 PJ/a 0 REF E[R] adv E[R]

REF E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

•• ••

‘EFFICIENCY’ OTHER SECTORS INDUSTRY TRANSPORT

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

6 key results | DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY DEMAND TO 2050

Efficiency gains in the heat supply sector are also considerable. Under both Energy [R]evolution scenarios, final demand for heat supply can be reduced significantly (see Figure 6.3). Compared to the Reference scenario, in the Advanced case heat consumption equivalent to 66 PJ/a, or 18%, (53 PJ/a, or 15%, in the Energy [R]evolution scenario), is avoided through efficiency gains by 2050. As a result of energy-related renovation of the existing stock of residential buildings, as well as the introduction of low energy standards and ‘passive houses’ for new buildings, enjoyment of the same comfort and energy service with a much lower future energy demand will be achieved.

The increasing number of electric vehicles and quicker phase-out of fossil fuels from space heat and low temperature process heat generated by electric geothermal heat pumps and hydrogen lead to a rising electricity demand of 75 TWh in the Advanced Energy [R]evolution by 2050 (compared to 64 TWh in the Basic Energy [R]evolution). This value is still 17% lower than in the Reference case. Further details regarding the electricity sector can be found in the next paragraph.

figure 6.2: development of electricity demand by sector under both energy [r]evolution scenarios

figure 6.3: development of heat demand by sector under both energy [r]evolution scenarios

300

450 400

250

350 200

300 250

150

200 100

150 100

50 PJ/a 0

PJ/a 0 E[R] adv E[R]

E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2007

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

•• ••

‘EFFICIENCY’ OTHER SECTORS INDUSTRY TRANSPORT

•••

‘EFFICIENCY’ OTHER SECTORS INDUSTRY

table 6.1: projection of renewable electricity generation capacity under both energy [r]evolution scenarios

The development of the electricity supply sector in the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario is characterised by a rapidly growing renewable energy market. This will compensate for the phasing out of nuclear energy and reduce the number of fossil fuel-fired power plants required for grid stabilisation. By 2050, most of the electricity produced in Hungary will come from renewable energy sources (78%).

IN MW

Hydro

Advanced E[R]

Biomass

E[R] Advanced E[R]

Wind

E[R] Advanced E[R]

Geothermal

E[R] Advanced E[R]

CSP

E[R] Advanced E[R]

Ocean energy E[R] Advanced E[R]

Total

E[R] Advanced E[R]

2020

2030

2040

2050

51 51 361 361 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 481 481

68 69 1,253 1,359 1,563 2,438 123 165 636 1,818 0 0 0 0 3,642 5,850

75 76 1,941 1,755 3,125 4,563 501 929 2,273 5,000 0 0 0 0 7,915 12,322

89 90 1,497 2,138 5,938 5,938 845 1,199 5,909 7,273 0 0 0 0 14,277 16,637

96 97 1,682 2,663 8,750 9,688 1,564 2,228 8,182 10,364 0 0 0 0 20,274 25,039

Compared to the Energy [R]evolution scenario, the Advanced scenario sees almost 20% additional power from renewable energy sources to satisfy increased electricity demand. A faster uptake of the different renewable energy technologies is assumed, shifting the use of biomass from the transport to the power sector.

figure 6.4: development of electricity generation structure under three scenarios (REFERENCE, ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION AND ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION) [“EFFICIENCY” = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO]

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 TWh/a 0 REF E[R] adv E[R]

REF E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

••• •• •• •• •• ••

‘EFFICIENCY’ SOLAR THERMAL GEOTHERMAL BIOMASS PV WIND HYDRO DIESEL OIL NATURAL GAS LIGNITE COAL NUCLEAR

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

The installed capacity of renewable energy technologies will grow from the current 0,5 MW to 25 GW in 2050, increasing renewable capacity by a factor of almost 50 (see Table 6.1) in the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario. Wind power and photovoltaics cover more than three quarters of the total installed renewable capacity, around 10 GW each. The remainder is mainly provided by biomass and geothermal power, supplemented by CSP imports.

E[R]

2007

key results |

Figure 6.4 shows the evolution of the Hungarian electricity mix under 3 different scenarios. Up to 2020, wind and biomass will remain the main contributors to the growing RES market share, complemented by a massive market introduction of electricity from photovoltaics. After 2020, the continued growth of wind and photovoltaics will be accompanied by geothermal energy. The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario will lead to a higher share of variable power generation sources (photovoltaic and wind) of 30% by 2030 and of 44% by 2050. Therefore, the expansion of smart grids, demand side management (DSM) and storage capacity from an increased share of electric vehicles and pumped hydropower will be used for better grid integration and power generation management. Additionally imports of solar thermal (CSP) power from North Africa and Middle East to Europe and directly to Hungary will help to stabilize the grid.

image FOREST IN THE VÉRTES MOUNTAINS, HUNGARY. image GREENPEACE ACTION AT HUNGARY'S FIRST WIND-TURBINE, KULCS, HUNGARY.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

6.2 future costs of electricity generation

6 key results |

The introduction of renewable technologies under the two Energy [R]evolution scenarios slightly increases the specific costs of electricity generation compared to the Reference scenario until 2030 (see Figure 6.5). This difference will be about 3 euro cent/kWh. However, after 2030, specific electricity generation costs under the Energy [R]evolution scenarios will become cheaper. This is due to better economics of scale and technological learning in the production of renewable power equipment. By 2040 the electricity generation costs under the Energy [R]evolution scenarios will become cheaper than in the Reference Scenario, which faces a large cost increase due to growing fuel prices.

figure 6.5: development of total electricity supply costs & development of specific electricity generation costs under three scenarios

Bn€/a

FUTURE COSTS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION, FUTURE INVESTMENT

Due to the increased electricity demand especially in the transport sector the overall total supply costs in the Advanced case are higher by €840 million in 2030 and €1,050 million in 2050 than in the Energy [R]evolution scenario

10 8 8 6

In 2050, the specific costs for one kWh add up to 11 euro cent in the Advanced scenario, 12 euro cent in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario and 15 euro cent in the Reference scenario. Under the Reference scenario, the unchecked growth in demand, the increase in fossil fuel prices and the cost of CO2 emissions result in total electricity supply costs rising from today’s €3 billion per year to €13 billion in 2050. Figure 6.5 shows that the Energy [R]evolution scenarios not only comply with Europe’s CO2 reduction targets but also help to stabilise energy costs and relieve economic pressure on society. Increasing energy efficiency and shifting energy supply to renewables result in long term costs for electricity supply that are 31% lower in the Advanced and 40% lower in the Energy [R]evolution scenario. The higher total costs in the Advanced compared to the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario result from a higher requirement for electricity due to the increasing electrification of the transport and heating sectors.

¢/kWh

6 4

2 0

0 2000

••• •

2010

2020

2030

2040

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION - ‘EFFICIENCY’ MEASURES REFERENCE SCENARIO ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

2050

6.3 future investment

Under the Reference scenario, the average annual fuel costs are about four times higher than the additional investment requirements of the Advanced Energy [R]evolution. These renewable energy sources would then go on to produce electricity without any further fuel costs beyond 2050, while the costs for coal and gas will continue to be a burden on national economies.

6 key results |

It would require €58.6 billion investment for the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario to become reality – €18 billion higher than in the Reference scenario. Under the Reference version, only 38% of investments will go to renewable energy and cogeneration, while 18% goes to fossil fuels and 44% into nuclear power plants. Under the Advanced scenario, however, Hungary shifts about 73% of investment towards renewables; by 2030 the fossil fuel share of power sector investment would be focused mainly on combined heat and power and efficient gas-fired power plants.

image SUN SETTING OVER LAKE BALATON, HUNGARY. image SUNFLOWERS, HUNGARY.

FUTURE INVESTMENT

The average annual investment in the power sector under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario between 2011 and 2050 would be approximately €1.3 billion.

figure 6.6: investment shares - reference versus energy [r]evolution scenarios reference scenario 2007 - 2050

energy [r]evolution scenario 2007 - 2050 18%

FOSSIL

11%

FOSSIL

26%

RENEWABLES

16%

CHP

73%

RENEWABLES

total 40.7 billion €

total 43.7 billion € 12%

CHP

44%

NUCLEAR

advanced energy [r]evolution scenario 2007 - 2050 10%

FOSSIL

16%

CHP

figure 6.7: change in cumulative power plant investment in both energy [r]evolution scenarios

• • • •

total 58.6 billion € 30

74%

RENEWABLES

€billion/a

FOSSIL & NUCLEAR E[R] FOSSIL & NUCLEAR ADVANCED E[R] RENEWABLE E[R] RENEWABLE ADVANCED E[R]

10 0 -10 -20 -30

2011-2020

2021-2030

2007-2050

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

figure 6.8: renewable energy investment costs by technology geothermal pv power plant wind hydro

biomass

key results |

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Million €

FUTURE INVESTMENT

table 6.2: fuel cost savings and investment costs under three scenarios EURO

2011-2020

2021-2030

2011-2050

2011-2050 AVERAGE PER YEAR

billion € billion € billion €

-4.7 3.2 -1.5

-12.8 4.6 -8.2

-19.7 22.5 2.8

-0.5 0.6 0.1

billion € billion € billion €

-5.0 6.8 1.8

-13.0 8.3 -4.7

-19.2 37.1 17.9

-0.5 0.9 0.4

billion billion billion billion

€/a €/a €/a €/a

0.0 -1.4 0.0 -1.3

0.1 -0.3 0.0 -0.1

1.0 36.3 0.0 37.5

0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9

billion billion billion billion

€/a €/a €/a €/a

0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.3

0.1 5.3 0.0 5.4

1.0 62.2 0.0 63.3

0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6

INVESTMENT COST HUNGARY (2011) DIFFERENCE E[R] VERSUS REF

Conventional (fossil & nuclear) Renewables (incl. CHP) Total

HUNGARY (2011) DIFFERENCE ADV E[R] VERSUS REF

Conventional (fossil & nuclear) Renewables (incl. CHP) Total CUMULATED FUEL COST SAVINGS SAVINGS E[R] CUMULATED IN €

Fuel oil Gas Hard coal Total SAVINGS ADV E[R] CUMULATED IN €

Fuel oil Gas Hard coal Total

image POWER STATION, HUNGARY.

image GREENPEACE SOLAR SHOWER ACTION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROMOTING TOUR IN HUNGARY.

Renewables currently provide 9% of Hungary’s primary energy demand for heat supply, mostly through biomass. The existing basis of district heating networks could provide a basis to the large scale utilisation of geothermal and solar thermal energy. In the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario, renewables provide 93% of Hungary’s total heating and cooling demand by 2050. This value is 27 percentage points higher than in the Energy [R]evolution scenario due to two main effects:

For the transport sector, the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario assumes that energy demand will decrease by more than half current level to 120 PJ/a by 2050 (140 PJ/a in the Energy [R]evolution scenario), saving 50% compared to the Reference scenario. This reduction can be achieved by the introduction of highly efficient vehicles, by shifting the transport of goods from road to rail and by changes in mobility-related behaviour patterns. Implementing attractive alternatives to individual cars would see the car stock grow more slowly than in the Reference scenario. A shift towards smaller cars triggered by economic incentives and a significant shift in propulsion technology towards electrified trains and road vehicles will also contribute, as will a reduction of annual vehicle kilometres travelled.

• Strict energy efficiency measures through tight building standards and renewable heating systems, among other things, are introduced around 5 years ahead of the Energy [R]evolution scenario. They can decrease the current demand for heat supply by 66 PJ/a or 18%, compared to the Reference scenario by 2050, while improving living standards. • Solar collectors and geothermal heating systems, eclipsing fossil fuel-fired systems, achieve economies of scale via ambitious support programmes 5 to 10 years earlier than in the Energy [R]evolution scenario. This leads to a very high renewable share in the Advanced scenario, tripling that of the Reference scenario.

figure 6.9: development of heat supply structure under three scenarios

In the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario 23% of the final energy demand in the transport sector is covered by RES in 2030, rising to 67% in 2050. This is twice as high as the renewable share in the Energy [R]evolution case, where the amount of biofuels is higher (40 PJ/a vs. 11 PJ/a in the Advanced scenario). In 2030, electricity will provide 19% of the transport sector’s total energy demand in the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario (8% in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario) By 2050 this share will increase to 65% (37% respectively).

figure 6.10: transport under three scenarios

300

450 400

250

350 200

300 250

150

200 100

150 100

50 PJ/a 0

PJ/a 0 REF E[R] adv E[R]

REF E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

••• •• •

‘EFFICIENCY’ HYDROGEN GEOTHERMAL SOLAR BIOMASS FOSSIL FUELS

••• •• •

‘EFFICIENCY’ HYDROGEN ELECTRICITY BIOFUELS NATURAL GAS OIL PRODUCTS

HEATING & COOLING, TRANSPORT

6.5 transport

key results |

6.4 heating and cooling supply

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

6.6 development of CO2 emissions

6 key results |

While CO2 emissions in Hungary will decrease by 10% in the Reference scenario by 2050, under the Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario they will decrease from 58 million tons in 2005 to 9 million t in 2050 (equal to a 88% emissions reduction compared to the 1990 level). Annual per capita emissions will drop from 5.8 t to 1 t. In spite of the phasing out of nuclear energy and increasing demand, CO2 emissions will decrease in the electricity sector. In the long run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewable electricity in vehicles will reduce emissions in the transport sector. With a share of 54% of total CO2 in 2050, the power sector will remain the largest source of emissions (see Figure 6.11).

CO2 EMISSIONS & PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION

figure 6.11: development of CO2 emissions by sector under both energy [r]evolution scenarios Million people

Mill t/a

9.8

9.6 50

9.4 9.2

9 30

8.8

8.6 8.4

8.2 8

0 E[R] adv E[R]

E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

6.7 primary energy consumption

••• ••

Main reasons for this are a replacement of new coal power plants with renewables after 20 years rather than 40 years lifetime in the Energy [R]evolution scenario and a faster introduction of electric vehicles to replace combustion engines. Nuclear energy is completely phased out in both Energy [R]evolution scenarios just after 2020. Taking into account the assumptions discussed above, the resulting primary energy consumption under the Energy [R]evolution scenario is shown in Figure 6.12. Compared to the Reference scenario, overall primary energy demand will be reduced to 62% in 2050.

POPULATION DEVELOPMENT SAVINGS FROM ‘EFFICIENCY’ & RENEWABLES OTHER SECTORS INDUSTRY TRANSPORT PUBLIC ELECTRICITY & CHP

Around 75% of the remaining demand will be covered by renewable energy sources. Compared with that, the primary energy demand in the Basic Energy [R]evolution scenario, is 8% higher, whereas the renewable energy share reaches only 58%. This gap is due to the fact that the Advanced scenario phases out coal and oil about 10 to 15 years earlier than the Energy [R]evolution scenario.

figure 6.12: development of primary energy consumption under three scenarios

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

PJ/a 0

REF E[R] adv E[R]

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

••• •• •• •• ••

‘EFFICIENCY’ SOLAR IMPORT GEOTHERMAL SOLAR BIOMASS WIND HYDRO NATURAL GAS OIL COAL NUCLEAR

employment HUNGARY

FUTURE EMPLOYMENT

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

“by choosing the appropriate [renewable] technologies, we can create at least 70,000 new jobs.” PETER OLAJOS DEPUTY STATE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

7.1 future employment Modelled energy sector jobs increase by 2015 under all scenarios. In 2010, there are 16,600 electricity sector jobs. These increase to 20,000 in the Reference scenario, 24,000 in the Energy [R]evolution scenario, and to 33,000 in the Advanced scenario. Figure 7.1 shows the increase in job numbers under both Energy [R]evolution scenarios and the Reference case for each technology up to 2030, with details given in Table 7.1.

These calculations do not include the jobs associated with decommissioning nuclear power stations, or jobs in energy efficiency. These are both likely to be significant in the Energy [R]evolution and Advanced scenarios. 2000 MW of nuclear power is phased out in the two Energy [R]evolution scenarios, and there is a reduction in electricity generation of more than 30% relative to the Reference scenario.

figure 7.1: jobs by technology under three scenarios 40,000

•• •• •• •• •

35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000

REF

E[R]

SOLAR THERMAL GEOTHERMAL PV WIND HYDRO BIOMASS NUCLEAR GAS, OIL, & DIESEL COAL

2030

2020

2015

2030

2020

2015

2030

2020

0 2015

FUTURE EMPLOYMENT

• In the Advanced scenario, jobs nearly double by 2015, to 33,000, and then stay nearly constant to 2020. There is a reduction in jobs between 2020 and 2030, but 2030 jobs are still 29,000, 78% higher than jobs in 2010.

2010

employment |

The overall trend in the Reference scenario is dominated by the coal, biomass, and nuclear sectors. The coal sector loses 4,000 jobs between 2010 and 2030, continuing the trend over the last 20 years, which has seen Hungary lose 30,000 jobs in coal mining.47 The biomass sector grows by 5000 by 2020, and the nuclear sector by 6,000 jobs. The increase in the nuclear sector is mainly in construction as another 2000 MW of nuclear power is planned to come online by 2030.

• In the [R]evolution scenario, jobs increase by 43% by 2015, to 24,000. There is a further 23% increase by 2020, to 27,500, and by 2030 jobs reach 34,000, more than double 2010 levels.

Jobs (thousands, fulll time equivalent)

• In the Reference case, jobs grow by 23% by 2015, and then a further 27% by 2020, to reach 25,000. There is a slight reduction between 2020 and 2030, but jobs in 2030 are still 24,100, 45% higher than jobs in 2010.

• Biomass show particularly strong growth, accounting for between 38% and 45% of energy sector employment by 2030 in all three scenarios. Coal generation is phased out in all three scenarios.

adv E[R]

table 7.1: electricity sector jobs in the three scenarios REFERENCE

Thousand Jobs Coal Gas, oil and diesel Nuclear Renewables Total Jobs

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION

ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION

2010

2015

2020

2030

2015

2020

2030

2015

2020

2030

4.2 4.8 3.0 4.6 17

4.0 4.8 5.9 5.7 20

2.8 4.9 8.8 8.3 25

0.0 6.0 5.9 12.2 24

4.0 5.3 2.2 12 24

2.5 5.8 1.4 18 28

0.0 5.5 0.0 29 34

4.0 5.3 2.2 21 33

2.6 5.5 1.4 25 34

0.0 4.7 0.0 25 30

reference 47 NEWBURY, DM. 2000.THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR. IN KESSIDES, IN. (ED). WORLD BANK

TECHNICAL PAPER NO 474, HUNGARY. A REGULATORY AND STRUCTURAL REVIEW OF SELECTED INFRASTRUCTURE SECTORS.

image CONSTRUCTION OF WIND TURBINES.

The [R]evolution scenario includes considerable growth across the renewable sector, with 13,000 new jobs by 2020. Biomass accounts for 7,000 and solar PV accounts for 5,000 of the increase. By 2030, bioenergy is the largest sector, accounting for 40% of energy sector employment, followed by PV and then wind. There are significant reductions in jobs in the coal and nuclear industries, although these are exceeded by the job creation in the renewable sector. By 2030 there are 34,000 electricity sector jobs, double the 2010 levels.

To calculate how many jobs will either be lost or created under the three scenarios requires a series of assumptions or calculations. These are summarised below. • Installed electrical capacity and generation by technology for each year, from the two Energy [R]evolution scenarios and the Reference scenario modelled by DLR. • “Employment factors” for each technology, which give the number of jobs per unit of electrical capacity. These are key inputs to the analysis. Employment factors from OECD data are used when local factors are not available.

The Advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario shows even stronger growth at 2015 and 2020, mainly concentrated in solar PV and biomass. Solar PV accounts for 36% of energy sector employment in 2015, even greater than biomass (20%). However, while biomass jobs continue to grow, solar PV jobs decline by 2030, although still accounting for 18% of energy sector employment. At 2030 there are 29,500 energy sector jobs, 78% above 2010 levels.

• The percentage of coal and gas which originates within Hungary.

Greenpeace engaged the Australian-based Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) to model the employment effects of the 2009 and 2010 global energy scenarios, published as “Working for the climate – Renewable Energy & The Green Job [R]evolution”.48 The modelling methodology was updated and published in 2010.49

Only direct employment is included, namely jobs in construction, manufacturing, operations and maintenance, and fuel supply associated with electricity generation. Employment numbers are indicative only, as a large number of assumptions are required to make calculations. However, within the limits of data availability, the figures presented are indicative of employment levels under the three scenarios.

The model calculates indicative numbers for jobs that would either be created or lost under the two Energy [R]evolution and the Reference scenarios, with the aim of showing the effect on employment if the world re-invents its energy mix to dramatically cut carbon emissions. The Reference (‘business as usual’) scenario and both the [R]evolution scenarios were constructed for Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council by the German Aerospace Center (DLR).

The calculation of energy supply jobs is summarised in Table 7.2.

table 7.2: methodology to calculate employment JOBS = MANUFACTURING JOBS + CONSTRUCTION JOBS + OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) JOBS + FUEL SUPPLY JOBS, WHERE: MANUFACTURING JOBS

MW INSTALLED OR EXPORTED PER YEAR

MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT FACTOR

CONSTRUCTION JOBS

MW INSTALLED PER YEAR

CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT FACTOR

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE JOBS

CUMULATIVE CAPACITY

O&M EMPLOYMENT FACTOR

FUEL SUPPLY JOBS

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

FUEL EMPLOYMENT FACTOR

JOBS IN REGION 2010

JOBS (AS ABOVE)

JOBS IN REGION 2020

JOBS (AS ABOVE) × TECHNOLOGY DECLINE FACTOR

(years after start)

JOBS IN REGION 2030

JOBS (AS ABOVE) × TECHNOLOGY DECLINE FACTOR

(years after start)

% OF LOCAL MANUFACTURING

references 48 GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY COUNCIL. 2009. WORKING FOR THE CLIMATE.

49 RUTOVITZ, J AND USHER, J. 2010. METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING ENERGY SECTOR JOBS. PREPARED FOR GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL BY THE INSTITUTE OF SUSTAINABLE FUTURES, UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY.

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

• The percentage of manufacturing for each technology which occurs within Hungary, and whether there are any technology exports to the rest of the world.

7.2 methodology overview

7 employment |

• Decline factors, or learning adjustment rates, which are used to reduce the employment factors by a specific percentage each year. Employment per unit of capacity reduces as technologies mature.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

7 employment |

7.2.1 employment factors

7.2.2 manufacturing and technology export

Electricity sector employment is calculated by using employment factors, which give the jobs created per unit of capacity (MW) or per unit of generation (GWh). In all renewable energy other than biomass, OECD employment factors from the global analysis have been used. (See Rutovitz and Usher, 2010 for a full explanation.)

Hungary is assumed to manufacture all components for coal, biomass, gas and oil technologies, and 10% of components for renewable energy and nuclear energy. No technology export is included in any scenario.

Data on the number of employees at existing power stations in Hungary was used to derive local employment factors where possible. The data is shown in Table 11.22 in the Appendix, and the derived local factors are compared to OECD factors below in Table 7.3. Unfortunately no data was obtained on employment in wind or solar PV.

7.2.3 coal and gas

MANUFACTURING, COAL & GAS

Where local factors are not available, the OECD factors have been adjusted for the fact that labour GDP per employee is lower in Hungary than in the OECD, so labour intensity is likely to be higher. A factor of 1.9 has been used, which is the ratio of labour productivity in Hungary to labour productivity in the OECD.50 A constant factor has been used, as projections of GDP growth in the current global financial situation are not considered reliable.

It is assumed that all coal is produced domestically, and a reducing percentage of gas. In 2010, 19% of gas is produced in Hungary. By 2020 and 2030 this is 14% and 12% respectively in the Reference and [R]evolution scenarios, and 15% (2020) and 16% (2030) in the Advanced scenario. The percentage of domestic production is higher in the Advanced scenario because there is less total gas use. Domestic gas production has been calculated assuming average annual decline in gas production from 2000 to 2010 of 2.4% per annum continues,51 and comparing this to the projected total gas use in PJ for each scenario.

For details and the derivation of the global factors and the updated decline factors see Rutovitz and Usher, 2010. table 7.3: local employment factors compared to OECD factors

Nuclear Lignite & Biomass (4) Gas & Oil Small Gas CHP

UNIT

OECD FACTOR (1)

LOCAL FACTOR (2)

RATIO (3)

USED IN ANALYSIS

Jobs/MW Jobs/MW Job years/ GWh Jobs/MW Jobs/MW

0.32 0.13 (lignite CHP) 0.55 (lignite) 0.07 n/a

1.40 2.3 0.31 0.28 2.3

4.4 17.3 0.6 4.3 n/a

1.40 2.3 0.31 0.28 2.3

notes 1. Factors from Rutovitz, J and Usher, J. 2010. Methodology for calculating energy sector jobs. Prepared for Greenpeace International by the Institute of Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney. 2. These have been derived from the employment at 7000 MW of Hungaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electrical capacity for 2006, using the weighted average of employment factor for each technology. The data for individual power stations is shown in Table 11.22 in the Appendix. All data for Hungary is from Aniko Pogany (personal communication, August 2nd 2011).

3. A ratio of 1.9 has been used to convert OECD employment factors when there is no local data, chiefly for the renewable technologies. This has been derived from the ratio of labour productivity in Hungary, to labour productivity in the OECD. With the exception of lignite fuel, the local factors are higher than the OECD factors multiplied by 1.9, so this may underestimate jobs in renewable technologies. 4. Includes data for some lignite/ biomass power stations. Many of the Hungarian coal fired power stations co-fire biomass, and are co-generation plants, so this factor has been used for coal, biomass, and coal and biomass CHP.

references 50 LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY DATA HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE ILO (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION) 2009. KEY INDICATORS OF THE LABOUR MARKET. 6TH EDITION DATABASE. 51 DATA ON GAS PRODUCTION FROM US ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, HUNGARY NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION. HTTP://WWW.EIA.GOV/COUNTRIES/COUNTRYDATA.CFM?FIPS=HU#NG, ACCESSED 3RD OCTOBER 2011.

the silent revolution – past and current market developments GLOBAL & HUNGARY

POWER PLANT MARKETS

COUNTRY ANALYSIS: HUNGARY

RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET RENEWABLE ENERGY EMPLOYMENT

8 “the bright future for renewable energy is already underway.” 67

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

The bright future for renewable energy is already underway. This analysis of the global power plant market shows that since the late 1990s, wind and solar installations grew faster than any other power plant technology across the world – about 430,000 MW total installed capacity between 2000 and 2010. However it is too early to claim the end of the fossil fuel based power generation, as at the same time more than 475,000 MW new coal power plants, with embedded cumulative emissions of over 55 billion tonnes CO2 over their technical lifetime.

Between 1990 and 2000, the global power plant industry went through a series of changes. While OECD countries began to liberalise their electricity markets, electricity demand did not match previous growth, so fewer new power plants were built. Capitalintensive projects with long payback times, such as coal and nuclear power plants, were unable to get sufficient financial support. The decade of gas power plants started.

200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000

•• •• •

NUCLEAR COAL GAS (INCL. OIL) BIOMASS GEOTHERMAL

source PLATTS, IEA, BREYER, TESKE.

•• ••

HYDRO WIND CSP PV

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

MW/a 0 1974

POWER PLANT MARKETS

Economies of developing countries, especially in Asia, started growing during the 1990s, and a new wave of power plant projects began. Similarly to the US and Europe, most of the new markets in the ‘tiger states’ of Southeast Asia partly deregulated their power sectors. A large number of new power plants in this region were built from Independent Power Producers (IPPs), who sell the electricity mainly to state-owned utilities. The dominating new built power plant technology in liberalised power markets are gas power plants. However, over the last decade, China focused on the development of new coal power plants. Excluding China, the global power plant market has seen a phase-out of coal since the late 1990s; the growth is in gas power plants and renewables, particularly wind.

figure 8.1: global power plant market 1970-2010

1972

the silent revolution |

This briefing provides an overview of the global annual power plant market of the past 40 years and a vision of its potential growth over the next 40 years, powered by renewable energy. Between 1970 and 1990, OECD countries that electrified their economies mainly with coal, gas and hydro power plants dominated the global power plant market. The power sector, at this time, was in the hands of stateowned utilities with regional or nationwide supply monopolies. The nuclear industry had a relatively short period of steady growth

1970

7 8

The global market volume of renewable energies in 2010 was on average, as much as the total global energy market volume each year between 1970 and 2000. The window of opportunity for renewables to both dominates new installations replacing old plants in OECD countries, as well as ongoing electrification in developing countries, closes within the next years. Good renewable energy policies and legally binding CO2 reduction targets are urgently needed.

between 1970 and the mid 1980s - with a peak in 1985, one year before the Chernobyl accident - while the following years were in decline, with no sign of a ‘nuclear renaissance’, despite the rhetoric.

image CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFFSHORE WINDFARM AT MIDDELGRUNDEN NEAR COPENHAGEN, DENMARK.

figure 8.2: global power plant market 1970-2010, excluding china

•• •• •

140,000

120,000

100,000

NUCLEAR COAL GAS (INCL. OIL) BIOMASS GEOTHERMAL

•• ••

HYDRO WIND CSP PV

80,000

60,000

40,000

8 the silent revolution |

20,000

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

MW/a 0

source PLATTS, IEA, BREYER, TESKE.

Electricity market liberalisation has a great influence on the chosen power plant technology. While the power sector in the US and Europe moved towards deregulated markets, which favour mainly gas power plants, China added a large amount of coal until 2009, with the first signs for a change in favour of renewables in 2009 and 2010.

USA: The liberalisation of the power sector in the US started with the Energy Policy Act 1992, and became a game changer for the entire power sector. While the US in 2010 is still far away from a fully liberalised electricity market, the effect on the chosen power plant technology has changed from coal and nuclear towards gas and wind. Since 2005, a growing number of wind power plants make up an increasing share of the new installed capacities as a result of mainly state based RE support programmes. Over the past year, solar photovoltaic plays a growing role with a project pipeline of 22,000 MW (Photon 4-2011, page 12).

figure 8.3: usa: annual power plant market 1970-2010

•• •• •

70,000

60,000

50,000

•• ••

NUCLEAR COAL GAS (INCL. OIL) BIOMASS GEOTHERMAL

HYDRO Policy act 1992 deregulation of the US electricity market

WIND CSP PV

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

MW/a 0

source PLATTS, IEA, BREYER, TESKE.

POWER PLANT MARKETS

8.1 power plant markets in the us, europe and china

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

Europe: About five years after the US began deregulating the power sector, the European Community started a similar process. Once again, the effect on the power plant market was the same. Investors backed fewer new power plants and extended the lifetime of the existing ones. New coal and nuclear power plants have seen a market share of well below 10% since than. The growing share of

renewables, especially wind and solar photovoltaic, are due to a legally-binding target for renewables and the associated renewable energy feed-in laws which are in force in several member states of the EU 27 since the late 1990s. Overall, new installed power plant capacity jumped to a record high, due to the repowering needs of the aged power plant fleet in Europe.

figure 8.4: europe: annual power plant market 1970-2010

•• •• •

60,000

50,000

the silent revolution |

40,000

•• ••

NUCLEAR COAL GAS (INCL. OIL) BIOMASS GEOTHERMAL

HYDRO 1997 - deregulation of the EU electricity market began

WIND CSP PV

30,000

20,000

POWER PLANT MARKETS

10,000

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

MW/a 0

figure 8.5: china: annual power plant market 1970-2010

•• •• •

120,000

100,000

80,000

•• ••

NUCLEAR COAL GAS (INCL. OIL) BIOMASS GEOTHERMAL

HYDRO WIND CSP PV

60,000

40,000

20,000

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

MW/a 0

source PLATTS, IEA, BREYER, TESKE.

reference 52 WHILE THE OFFICIAL STATISTIC OF THE GLOBAL AND CHINESE WIND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS (GWEC/CREIA) ADDS UP TO 18,900 MW FOR 2010, THE NATIONAL ENERGY BUREAU SPEAKS ABOUT 13.999 MW. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOURCES AS DUE TO THE TIME OF GRID CONNECTION, AS SOME TURBINES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN THE LAST MONTHS OF 2010, BUT HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO THE GRID IN 2011.

China: The steady economic growth in China since the late 1990s, and the growing power demand, led to an explosion of the coal power plant market, especially after 2002. In 2006 the market hit the peak year for new coal power plants: 88% of the newly installed coal power plants worldwide were built in China. At the same time, China is trying to take its dirtiest plants offline, within 2006~2010, total 76.825MW of small coal power plants were phased out under the “11th Five Year” programme. While coal still dominates the new added capacity, wind power is rapidly growing as well. Since 2003 the wind market doubled each year and was over 18,000 MW52 by 2010, 49% of the

image GEOTHERMIC WELL IN THE AZUFRES NATURAL PARK, MICHOACAN, MEXICO.

global wind market. However, coal still dominates the power plant market with over 55 GW of new installed capacities in 2010 alone. The Chinese government aims to increase investments into renewable energy capacity, and during 2009, about US$25.1 billion (RMB 162.7 billion) went to wind and hydro power plants which represents 44% of the overall investment in new power plants, for the first time larger than that of coal (RMB 149.2 billion), and in 2010 the figure was US$26 billion (RMB 168 billion) – 4.8% more in the total investment mix compared with the previous year 2009.

figure 8.6: power plant market shares

8 2%

global power plant market shares 2000-2010 - excluding china

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

RENEWABLES

30%

COAL POWER PLANTS

42%

GAS POWER PLANTS (INCL. OIL)

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

10%

COAL POWER PLANTS

28%

RENEWABLES

60%

GAS POWER PLANTS (INCL. OIL)

china: power plant market shares 2000-2010

usa: power plant market shares 2000-2010 4% 15%

81%

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

24%

RENEWABLES

GAS POWER PLANTS (INCL. OIL)

69%

COAL POWER PLANTS

EU27: power plant market shares 2000-2010 COAL POWER PLANTS RENEWABLES

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

COAL POWER PLANTS

45%

RENEWABLES

46%

GAS POWER PLANTS (INCL. OIL)

source PLATTS, IEA, BREYER, TESKE, GWAC, EPIA.

POWER PLANT MARKETS

26%

the silent revolution |

global power plant market shares 2000-2010

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

The energy revolution towards renewables and gas, away from coal and nuclear, has started on a global level already. This picture is even clearer, when we look into the global market shares excluding China, the only country with a massive expansion of coal. About 28% of all new power plants have been renewables and 60% have been gas power plants (88% in total). Coal gained a market share of only 10% globally, excluding China. Between 2000 and 2010, China has added over 350,000 MW of new coal capacity: twice as much as the entire coal capacity of the EU. However China has recently kick-started its wind market, and solar photovoltaics is expected to follow in the years to come. figure 8.7: hungary: new build power plants - market shares 2000-2010

8 the silent revolution |

91%

RENEWABLES

8.2 country analysis: hungary Hungary has one nuclear power plant (with four operating reactors) and a number of coal and gas plants as the dominating energy providers. The share of renewables is practically negligible, reaching only 7% in 2010. The four reactors at Paks Nuclear Power Plant were constructed during the 1970s and entered into operation from 1982 to 1987. Their original phase-out was planned from 2012 to 2017. The coal and lignite-fired power plants were also built during the 1960s and 1970s, and will have to be replaced in the coming years (desirably by the increased energy efficiency and renewables). And for the moment there are no definite plans for new coal plants, however, the extension of one of the biggest power plants, the lignite fired Mátrai, has been on and off the agenda of the government. The number of gas plants has strongly increased in recent times, and there has been a small growth in renewables capacities, albeit at a much smaller rate (See Figure 8.7).

COUNTRY ANALYSIS: ARGENTINA

All in all, there could seem to be an opportunity at the moment to set the country on a carbon-free track, yet serious obstacles block the way of an Energy [R]evolution. The government plans to extend the lifetime of all four Paks reactors by 20 years and there are plans to double the plant's capacity by adding two more reactors. Partly because of this, the renewable capacities are strongly limited, and the national energy policy does not incite the effective growth of the sector. Among the future plans new natural gas plants are also foreseen. Hungary has good solar, wind and geothermal potentials, and combining them with the necessary energy efficiency measures, a system mainly built on renewables could easily meet the country's energy demands.

GAS POWER PLANTS (INCL OIL)

figure 8.8: hungary: annual power plant market 1970-2010

•• ••

1,400

1,200

1,000

•• •

NUCLEAR COAL GAS (INCL. OIL) HYDRO

BIOMASS & GEOTHERMAL WIND PV

800

600

400

200

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

MW/a 0

source PLATTS, IEA, BREYER, TESKE. methodology THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON DATABASES FROM UDI WEPP PLATTS, THE IEA, GLOBAL WIND ENERGY COUNCIL, EUROPEAN PHOTOVOLTAIC INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, AND RESEARCH PAPER FROM DR. CHRISTIAN BREYER AND MARZELLA AMATA GÖRIG. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DIFFERENT STATISTICAL DATABASE USE DIFFERENT FUEL CATEGORIES AND SOME POWER PLANTS RUN ON MORE THAN ONE FUEL. IN ORDER TO AVOID DOUBLE COUNTING, DIFFERENT FUEL GROUPS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. NATIONAL DATA MIGHT DIFFER FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DATA BASIS.

image PETROCHEMICAL REFINERY, ARGENTINA.

figure 8.9: historic developments of the global power plant market by technology global annual gas power plant market (incl. oil) 1970-2010 100,000 90,000 80,000

MW/a

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000

8 2008

2010

2008

2010

2004 2004

2006

2002 2002

2006

2000 2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

the silent revolution |

1970

global annual coal power plant market 1970-2010 90,000 80,000

MW/a

60,000 50,000

COAL POWER PLANTS IN CHINA

POWER PLANT MARKETS

••

70,000

COAL POWER PLANTS - ALL OTHER COUNTRIES

40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

global annual nuclear power plant market 1970-2010 50,000

MW/a

40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

global annual wind power market 1970-2010

••

40,000 MW/a

30,000 20,000

WIND POWER PLANTS IN CHINA WIND POWER PLANTS - ALL OTHER COUNTRIES

10,000 1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

global annual solar photovoltaic market 1970-2010

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

0 1970

MW/a

20,000 10,000

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

80%

255% increase since 2005

GLOBAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET

The global installed capacity of new renewable energy at the end of 2010 (excluding large hydro) was 310 GW, with wind power making up around two thirds (197 GW) and solar photovoltaic 12% (39 GW). The new capacity commissioned in 2010 alone amounted to roughly 65 GW (excluding large hydro power), with the highest growth in wind power and solar photovoltaic.

â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘

37% 8%

13%

Biodiesel production

Geothermal power

Ethanol production

130% increase 1.063% increase in 2010 since 2005

Solar thermal power

%0 Solar PV (utility scale)

the silent revolution |

solar photovoltaics (PV)

29% increase in 2008

Solar PV (grid tied)

wind

4% 3%

20%

21% 17%

18% 28%

40%

Solar hot water/ heating

60%

27% 24%

50%

80%

98%

100%

Wind power

table 8.1: annual growth rates of global renewable energy

120% 90%

The renewable energy sector has been growing substantially over the last four years. In 2008, the increases in the installation level of both wind and solar power were particularly impressive. The total amount of renewable energy installed worldwide is reliably tracked by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). Its latest global status report (2011) shows how the technologies have grown.

figure 8.10: average annual growth rates of renewable energy capacity and biofuel production, 2005-2010

62%

8.3 the global renewable energy market

END 2005 THROUGH 2010 2010 ONLY

table 8.2: top five countries

China

Germany

Italy

United States

Czech Rep.

Annual amounts for 2010 New capacity investment Wind power added Solar PV added (grid-connected) Solar hot water/heat added Ethanol production

China

United States

Spain

India

Germany

Italy

Czech Rep.

Japan

United States

China

Germany

Turkey

India

Australia

United States

Brazil

China

Canada

France

Germany

Brazil

Argentina

France

United States

China

Germany

Spain

India

Renewable power capacity (including hydro)

China

United States

Canada

Brazil

Germany

Wind power

China

United States

Germany

Spain

India

Biomass power

United States

Brazil

Germany

China

Sweden

Geothermal power

United States

Philippines

Indonesia

Mexico

Italy

Germany

Spain

Japan

Italy

United States

China

Turkey

Germany

Japan

Greece

Bioediesel production Existing capacity as of end-2010 Renewables power capacity (not including hydro)

Solar PV (grid-connected) Solar hot water/heat

image WIND TURBINES, ARGENTINA.

The top five countries for new renewable energy in 2010 were China, Italy, Germany, the United States of America and Czech Republic. China doubled its wind power capacity for the seventh year in a row. The growth of grid-connected solar PV in Germany was six times the level in 2007 (2007: 1.2 GW – 2010: 7.4 GW)

figure 8.11: renewable power capacities, developing countries, eu and top six countries, 2010 (not including hydropower) 350 300

8.4 employment in global renewable energy Based on those countries for which statistics are available, the current global employment in renewable energy is as high as 3,5 million people.

250 200 150

•• ••

Japan

India

Spain

Germany

China

Unitied States

EU 27

Developing countries

World Total

GW 0

GEOTHERMAL SOLAR

EMPLOYMENT IN GLOBAL RENEWABLE ENERGY

To make sure that the renewables sector can provide large scale green employment, strong energy policies are essential. Some countries have already shown that renewable energy can form an important part of national economic strategies. Germany, for instance, views its investment in wind and solar PV as making a crucial contribution to its export markets. The government’s intention is to gain a major slice of the world market in the coming decades, with most German jobs in these industries depending on sales abroad of wind turbines and solar panels. Although only a few countries currently have the requisite scientific and manufacturing know-how to develop such a strategy, the markets for wind and solar equipment in particular are experiencing rapid growth.

100

the silent revolution |

Although so far it has been mostly the advanced economies that have shown leadership in encouraging viable renewable energy, developing countries are beginning to play a growing role. China and Brazil, for example, account for a large share of the global total, with a strong commitment to both solar thermal and biomass development. Many of the jobs created are in installation, operation and maintenance, as well as in manufaction of wind and solar equipment. The outlook for the future is that more developing countries are expected to generate substantial numbers of jobs.

BIOMASS WIND

table 8.3: employment in renewable electricity – selected countries and world estimates

INDUSTRY

Biofuels Wind power Solar hot water Solar PV Biomass power Hydropower Geothermal Biogas Solar thermal power Total estimated

ESTIMATED JOBS WORLDWIDE

> 1,500,000 ∼630,000 ∼300,000 ∼350,000 --------∼15,000 ∼3,500,000

SELECTED NATIONAL ESTIMATES

Brazil 730,000 for sugarcane and ethanol production China 150,000; Germany 100,000; United States 85,000; Spain 40,000; Italy 28,000; Denmark 24,000; Brazil 14,000; India 10,000 China 250,000; Spain 7,000 China 120,000; Germany 120,000; Japan 26,000; Spain 20,000; United States 17,000 Germany 120,000; United States 66,000; Spain 5,000 Europe 20,000; United States 8,000; Spain 7,000 Germany 13,000; United States 9,000 Germany 20,000 Spain 1,000; United States 1,000

notes/sources FIGURES ARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST 1.000 OR 10.000 AS ALL NUMBERS ARE ROUGH ESTIMATES AND NOT EXACT. GWEC/GREENPEACE 2010, GWEC 2010, WWEA 2009, EPIA 2010, BSW 2010, SOLAR PACES 2010, BMU 2010, CREIA 2010, MARTINOT AND LI 2007; NAVIGANT 2009; NIETO 2007; REN 21 2005 AND 2008; SUZION 2007; UNEP 2008; US GEOTHERMAL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 2009; US SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 2009. DATA ADJUSTED BASED ON SUBMISSIONS FROM REPORT CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHER SOURCES, ALONG WITH ESTIMATES FOR BIOFUELS AND SOLAR HOT WATER BY ERIC MARTINOT. EARLIER ESTIMATES WERE MADE BY UNEP IN 2008 (1,7 MILLION GLOBAL TOTAL) AND BY SVEN TESKE AND GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL IN 2009 (1,9 MILLION GLOBAL TOTAL) NOT INCLUDING BIOFUELS AND SOLAR HOT WATER. BRAZIL ETHANOL ESTIMATE FROM LABOR MARKET RESEARCH AND EXTENSTION GROUP (GEMT, ESALQ/USP). SOLAR HOT WATER EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATE USES THE FIGURE OF 150.000 FOR CHINA IN 2007 CITED IN MARTINOT AND LI 2007, ADJUSTED FOR GROWTH IN 2008-2009, AND ASSUMING EMPLOYMEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS IN PROPORTINO TO CHINA’S GLOBAL MARKET SHARE.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

energy resources & security of supply

I ST M

EA DR ZAK /

S. ©

R. KA SPR

% AROUND 80 GL

OB AL

9 8

FU EL

NUCLEAR

GAS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

EN ER GY DEM A

COAL

OIL

GLOBAL

ND I S M E T B Y

F IN

“the issue of security “quote.” of supply is now at the top of the energy policy agenda.” WHO WHERE/WHAT

The issue of security of supply is now at the top of the energy policy agenda. Concern is focused both on price security and the security of physical supply. At present around 80% of global energy demand is met by fossil fuels. The unrelenting increase in energy demand is matched by the finite nature of these resources. At the same time, the global distribution of oil and gas resources does not match the distribution of demand. Some countries have to rely almost entirely on fossil fuel imports. The maps on the following pages provide an overview of the availability of different fuels and their regional distribution. Information in this chapter is based partly on the report ‘Plugging the Gap’53, as well as information from the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2008 and 2009 reports. 9.1 oil

9.1.1 the reserves chaos

Historically, private oil companies have consistently underestimated their reserves to comply with conservative stock exchange rules and through natural commercial caution. Whenever a discovery was made, only a portion of the geologist’s estimate of recoverable resources was reported; subsequent revisions would then increase the reserves from that same oil field over time. National oil companies, mostly represented by OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), have taken a very different approach. They are not subject to any sort of accountability and their reporting practices are even less clear. In the late 1980s, the OPEC countries blatantly overstated their reserves while competing for production quotas, which were allocated as a proportion of the reserves. Although some revision was needed after the companies were nationalised, between 1985 and 1990, OPEC countries increased their apparent joint reserves by 82%. Not only were these dubious revisions never corrected, but many of these countries have reported untouched reserves for years, even if no sizeable discoveries were made and production continued at the same pace. Additionally, the Former Soviet Union’s oil and gas reserves have been overestimated by about 30% because the original assessments were later misinterpreted.

9.1.2 non-conventional oil reserves A large share of the world’s remaining oil resources is classified as ‘non-conventional’. Potential fuel sources such as oil sands, extra heavy oil and oil shale are generally more costly to exploit and their recovery involves enormous environmental damage. The reserves of oil sands and extra heavy oil in existence worldwide are estimated to amount to around 6 trillion barrels, of which between 1 and 2 trillion barrels are believed to be recoverable if the oil price is high enough and the environmental standards low enough. One of the worst examples of environmental degradation resulting from the exploitation of unconventional oil reserves is the oil sands that lie beneath the Canadian province of Alberta and form the world’s second-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. Producing crude oil from these ‘tar sands’ - a heavy mixture of bitumen, water, sand and clay found beneath more than 54,000 square miles54 of prime forest in northern Alberta, an area the size of England and Wales - generates up to four times more carbon dioxide, the principal global warming gas, than conventional drilling. The booming oil sands industry will produce 100 million tonnes of CO2 a year (equivalent to a fifth of the UK’s entire annual emissions) by 2012, ensuring that Canada will miss its emission targets under the Kyoto treaty. The oil rush is also scarring a wilderness landscape: millions of tonnes of plant life and top soil are scooped away in vast opencast mines and millions of litres of water diverted from rivers. Up to five barrels of water are needed to produce a single barrel of crude and the process requires huge amounts of natural gas. It takes two tonnes of the raw sands to produce a single barrel of oil. 9.2 gas Natural gas has been the fastest growing fossil energy source over the last two decades, boosted by its increasing share in the electricity generation mix. Gas is generally regarded as an abundant resource and public concerns about depletion are limited to oil, even though few in-depth studies address the subject. Gas resources are more concentrated, and a few massive fields make up most of the reserves. The largest gas field in the world holds 15% of the Ultimate Recoverable Resources (URR), compared to 6% for oil. Unfortunately, information about gas resources suffers from the same bad practices as oil data because gas mostly comes from the same geological formations, and the same stakeholders are involved.

53 ‘PLUGGING THE GAP - A SURVEY OF WORLD FUEL RESOURCES AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIND ENERGY’, GLOBAL WIND ENERGY COUNCIL/RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS, 2006. 54 THE INDEPENDENT, 10 DECEMBER 2007

OIL & GAS

Public data about oil and gas reserves is strikingly inconsistent, and potentially unreliable for legal, commercial, historical and sometimes political reasons. The most widely available and quoted figures, those from the industry journals Oil & Gas Journal and World Oil, have limited value as they report the reserve figures provided by companies and governments without analysis or verification. Moreover, as there is no agreed definition of reserves or standard reporting practice, these figures usually stand for different physical and conceptual magnitudes. Confusing terminology ‘proved’, ‘probable’, ‘possible’, ‘recoverable’, ‘reasonable certainty’ only adds to the problem.

Whilst private companies are now becoming more realistic about the extent of their resources, the OPEC countries hold by far the majority of the reported reserves, and their information is as unsatisfactory as ever. Their conclusions should therefore be treated with considerable caution. To fairly estimate the world’s oil resources a regional assessment of the mean backdated (i.e. ‘technical’) discoveries would need to be performed.

energy sources and security of supply |

Oil is the lifeblood of the modern global economy, as the effects of the supply disruptions of the 1970s made clear. It is the number one source of energy, providing 32% of the world’s needs and the fuel employed almost exclusively for essential uses such as transportation. However, a passionate debate has developed over the ability of supply to meet increasing consumption, a debate obscured by poor information and stirred by recent soaring prices.

image BROWN COAL SURFACE MINING IN HAMBACH, GERMANY. GIANT COAL EXCAVATOR AND SPOIL PILE.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

Most reserves are initially understated and then gradually revised upwards, giving an optimistic impression of growth. By contrast, Russia’s reserves, the largest in the world, are considered to have been overestimated by about 30%. Owing to geological similarities, gas follows the same depletion dynamic as oil, and thus the same discovery and production cycles. In fact, existing data for gas is of worse quality than for oil, with ambiguities arising over the amount produced, partly because flared and vented gas is not always accounted for. As opposed to published reserves, the technical reserves have been almost constant since 1980 because discoveries have roughly matched production.

9.2.1 shale gas55 Natural gas production, especially in the United States, has recently involved a growing contribution from non-conventional gas supplies such as shale gas. Conventional natural gas deposits have a welldefined geographical area, the reservoirs are porous and permeable, the gas is produced easily through a wellbore and does not generally require artificial stimulation. Non-conventional deposits, on the other hand, are often lower in resource concentration, more dispersed over large areas and require well stimulation or some other extraction or conversion technology. They are also usually more expensive to develop per unit of energy. Research and investment in non-conventional gas resources has increased significantly in recent years due to the rising price of conventional natural gas. In some areas the technologies for economic production have already been developed, in others it is still at the research stage. Extracting shale gas, however, usually goes hand in hand with environmentally hazardous processes.

9 energy sources and security of supply |

table 9.1: overview of fossil fuel reserves and resources RESERVES, RESOURCES AND ADDITIONAL OCCURRENCES OF FOSSIL ENERGY CARRIERS ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT AUTHORS. C CONVENTIONAL (PETROLEUM WITH A CERTAIN DENSITY, FREE NATURAL GAS, PETROLEUM GAS, NC NON-CONVENTIONAL) HEAVY FUEL OIL, VERY HEAVY OILS, TAR SANDS AND OIL SHALE, GAS IN COAL SEAMS, AQUIFER GAS, NATURAL GAS IN TIGHT FORMATIONS, GAS HYDRATES). THE PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL OCCURRENCES IS ASSUMED BASED ON GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS, BUT THEIR POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY IS CURRENTLY VERY UNCERTAIN. IN COMPARISON: IN 1998, THE GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND WAS 402EJ (UNDP ET AL., 2000).

ENERGY CARRIER

GAS

182 tcma

5,600

resources

405 tcma

9,400

additional occurrences reserves

921 tcma 2,369 bbb

5,800

Gas reserves

Oil

WEO 2009, WEO BROWN, 2002 2008, WEO 2007 EJ EJ

resources additional occurrences 847 bill tonnesc Coal reserves resources 921 tcmc additional occurrences Total resource (reserves + resources) Total occurrence

10,200

23,600 26,000 180,600

IEA, 2002c IPCC, 2001a EJ EJ

5,400 8,000 11,700 10,800 796,000 5,900 5,700 c 6,600 nc 7,500 13,400 c 15,500 nc 61,000 42,000 22,500 100,000 165,000 121,000 212,200 223,900 1,204,200 6,200 c nc 11,100 c nc

NAKICENOVIC ET AL., 2000 EJ

c nc c nc c nc c nc

5,900 8,000 11,700 10,800 799,700 6,300 8,100 6,100 13,900 79,500 25,400 117,000 125,600 213,200 1,218,000

UNDP ET AL., BGR, 1998 2000 EJ EJ

c nc c nc c nc c nc

5,500 9,400 11,100 23,800 930,000 6,000 5,100 6,100 15,200 45,000 20,700 179,000 281,900 1,256,000

c nc c ncd

5,300 100 7,800 111,900

c nc c nc

6,700 5,900 3,300 25,200 16,300 179,000 361,500

sources & notes A) WEO 2009, B) OIL WEO 2008, PAGE 205 TABLE 9.1 C) IEA WEO 2008, PAGE 127 & WEC 2007. D) INCLUDING GAS HYDRATES. SEE TABLE FOR ALL OTHER SOURCES.

55 INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (INGAA), “AVAILABILITY, ECONOMICS AND PRODUCTION POTENTIAL OF NORTH AMERICAN UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES”, NOVEMBER 2008.

image PLATFORM OIL RIG DUNLIN IN THE NORTH SEA SHOWING OIL POLLUTION. image ON A LINFEN STREET, TWO MEN LOAD UP A CART WITH COAL THAT WILL BE USED FOR COOKING. LINFEN, A CITY OF ABOUT 4.3 MILLION, IS ONE OF THE MOST POLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD. CHINA’S INCREASINGLY POLLUTED ENVIRONMENT IS LARGELY A RESULT OF THE COUNTRY’S RAPID DEVELOPMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY A LARGE INCREASE IN PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION, WHICH IS ALMOST ENTIRELY PRODUCED BY BURNING COAL.

table 9.2: assumptions on fossil fuel use in the three scenarios Oil Reference [PJ] Reference [million barrels] E[R] [PJ] E[R] [million barrels] Adv E[R] [PJ] Adv E[R] [million barrels] Gas

Coal Reference [PJ] Reference [million tonnes] E[R] [PJ] E[R] [million tonnes] Adv E[R] [PJ] Adv E[R] [million tonnes]

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

155,920 25,477

161,847 26,446 153,267

170,164 27,805 143,599

192,431 31,443 123,756

209,056 34,159 101,186

224,983 36,762 81,833

25,044 152,857 24,977

23,464 142,747 23,325

20,222 115,002 18,791

16,534 81,608 13,335

13,371 51,770 8,459

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

104,845 2,759

112,931 2,972 116,974 3,078 118,449 3,117

121,148 3,188 121,646 3,201 119,675 3,149

141,706 3,729 122,337 3,219 114,122 3,003

155,015 4,079 99,450 2,617 79,547 2,093

166,487 4,381 71,383 1,878 34,285 902

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

135,890 7,319

162,859 8,306 140,862 7,217 135,005 6,829

204,231 9,882 96,846 4,407 69,871 3,126

217,356 10,408 64,285 2,810 28,652 1,250

225,245 10,751 37,563 1,631 7,501 326

9.4 nuclear

Coal was the world’s largest source of primary energy until it was overtaken by oil in the 1960s. Today, coal supplies almost one quarter of the world’s energy. Despite being the most abundant of fossil fuels, coal’s development is currently threatened by environmental concerns; hence its future will unfold in the context of both energy security and global warming.

Uranium, the fuel used in nuclear power plants, is a finite resource whose economically available reserves are limited. Its distribution is almost as concentrated as oil and does not match global consumption. Five countries - Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Niger - control three quarters of the world’s supply. As a significant user of uranium, however, Russia’s reserves will be exhausted within ten years.

Coal is abundant and more equally distributed throughout the world than oil and gas. Global recoverable reserves are the largest of all fossil fuels, and most countries have at least some coal. Moreover, existing and prospective big energy consumers like the US, China and India are self-sufficient in coal and will be for the foreseeable future. Coal has been exploited on a large scale for two centuries, so both the product and the available resources are well known; no substantial new deposits are expected to be discovered. Extrapolating the demand forecast forward, the world will consume 20% of its current reserves by 2030 and 40% by 2050. Hence, if current trends are maintained, coal would still last several hundred years.

Secondary sources, such as old deposits, currently make up nearly half of worldwide uranium reserves. These will soon be used up, however. Mining capacities will have to be nearly doubled in the next few years to meet current needs. A joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency56 estimates that all existing nuclear power plants will have used up their nuclear fuel, employing current technology, within less than 70 years. Given the range of scenarios for the worldwide development of nuclear power, it is likely that uranium supplies will be exhausted sometime between 2026 and 2070. This forecast includes the use of mixed oxide fuel (MOX), a mixture of uranium and plutonium.

56 ‘URANIUM 2003: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND’

COAL & NUCLEAR

9.3 coal

9 energy sources and security of supply |

Reference [PJ] Reference [billion cubic metres = 10E9m3] E[R] [PJ] E[R] [billion cubic metres = 10E9m3] Adv E[R] [PJ] Adv E[R] [billion cubic metres = 10E9m3]

2007

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 9.1: oil reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

9 energy resources & security of supply |

OECD NORTH AMERICA

OIL

REF 2007

OIL LEGEND

140 130

>60

50-60

40-50

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO

120 110

30-40

5-10

20-30

0-5

10-20

% RESOURCES GLOBALLY

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

100

E[R]

REF

TMB

69.3

5.6%

69.3

5.6%

2007

E[R]

TMB

111.2

9.0%

111.2

9.0%

2007

7,429H 45,466H 7,429H 45,466H

2007

1,691

10,349

1,691

10,349

2050

6,594H 40,352H 1,225

2050

2,597

15,895

292

1,788

2007

2,707H

2050

1,816H

337

$ PER BARREL

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LATIN AMERICA

7,494

2007

598

2050

653

COST crude oil prices 1988 2007 and future predictions comparing the REF and advanced E[R] scenarios 1 barrel = 159 litres

E[R] REF

SOURCES REF: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY/E[R]: DEVELOPMENTS APPLIED IN THE GES-PROJECT

1000 KM

80 70 60 50

RESERVES TOTAL THOUSAND MILLION BARRELS [TMB] | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007]

CONSUMPTION PER REGION MILLION BARRELS [MB] | PETA JOULE [PJ]

30 20

CONSUMPTION PER PERSON LITERS [L] 10

YEARS 1988 - 2007 PAST

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

OECD EUROPE REF 2007

MIDDLE EAST E[R]

REF

TMB

16.9

1.4%M

16.9

1.4%M

E[R] %

TMB

2007

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA REF %

TMB

755.3H 61.0%H

2007

E[R]

REF

TMB

15.5

1.3%

15.5

1.3%

2007

E[R]

TMB

87.6

10.1%L

87.6

10.1%L

2007

4,337

26,541

4,337

4,418

2007

1,913

11,709

1,913

11,709

2007

2,445

14,966

2,445

14,966

2007

1,605

9,826

1,605

2050

3,590M 21,970M 722M

9,361M

2050

3,574

21,871

569

3,482

2050

7,946

48,629

1,881H 11,513H

2050

1,953L 11,955L 441L

2007

1,285

2007

1,617

2007

294

2007

748M

2050

1,013M

204

2050

1,638

261

2050

891

211M

2050

1,057

239

9,826 2,701L

GLOBAL REF 2007

INDIA

2007

E[R] %

REF %

TMB

117.5M 9.5%

2007

E[R]

REF

TMB

5.5

0.5%

5.5

0.5%

2007

TMB

1,199

100%

1,199

100%

2007

25,477 155,919 25,477 155,919

2050

36,762 224,981 8,459 L

2007

623

2050

637

147

51,770

OECD PACIFIC

E[R]

REF

TMB

14.8

1.2%

14.8

1.2%

2007

E[R]

OIL

REF TMB

DEVELOPING ASIA

energy resources & security of supply |

AFRICA

E[R]

TMB

5.1L

0.4%

5.1L

0.4%

2007

924

5,654

924

5,654

2007

1,011L 6,187L

1,011

6,187

2007

1,656

10,136

1,656

10,136

2007

2,465M 15,089M 2,465

15,086

2050

1,667

10,202

689

4,214

2050

3,669

1,169

7,152

2050

3,448

21,099

1,014

6,204

2050

1,724

2,805

2007

159

2007

142L

2007

270

2007

1,958

2050

133L

55L

2050

352

112

2050

365

107

2050

1,539

409H

22,455

CO2 EMISSIONS FROM OIL

RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION oil reserves versus global demand, production and consumption. global consumption comparison between the REF and advanced E[R] scenarios.

comparison between the REF and advanced E[R] scenarios 2007 2050 billion tonnes

REF

10,552

458

global consumption

ADV E[R]

global consumption

million barrels. 1 barrel = 159 litres SOURCE BP 2008

SOURCE GPI/EREC

BILLION TONNES

50,000

20 15

REF

40,000 30,000

MILLION BARRELS

1,358 25

BILLION BARRELS USED SINCE 2007

1,199 BILLION BARRELS PROVEN 2007

REF

811 E[R]

20,000

BILLION BARRELS USED SINCE 2007

YEARS 2007 - 2050

YEARS 1972 - 2007 PAST

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

2050

2040

2030

0 2020

0 2015

10,000

2007

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

E[R]

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 9.2: gas reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

GAS

REF 2007

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO

20-30

10-20

5-10

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

0-5

% RESOURCES GLOBALLY

1000 KM

RESERVES TOTAL TRILLION CUBIC METRES [tn m3] | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007] CONSUMPTION PER REGION BILLION CUBIC METRES [bn m3] | PETA JOULE [PJ] CONSUMPTION PER PERSON CUBIC METRES [m3]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

4.4%

8.0

4.4%

bn m3

tn m3

7.7

4.3%

7.7

4.3%

bn m3

722H

27,435H 722H

27,435H

2007

117

4,465

117

4,465

2050

767H

29,144H 71H

2,688H

2050

246M

9,358M

1,303

2007

1,608

2050

1,328

123

2007

254

2050

410

COST gas prices of LNG/ natural gas 1984 - 2007 and future predictions comparing the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios.

E[R]

SOURCE JAPAN CIF/EUROPEAN UNION CIF/IEA 2007 - US IMPORTS/ IEA 2007 - EUROPEAN IMPORTS

REF

LNG

NATURAL GAS

YEARS 1984 - 2007 PAST

2007

2050

30-40

8.0

E[R]

tn m3

2040

40-50

2030

>50

24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

tn m3

2010

LEGEND

REF

2007

$ PER MILLION Btu

GAS

E[R]

tn m3

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

LATIN AMERICA

2020

energy resources & security of supply |

OECD NORTH AMERICA

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

OECD EUROPE REF 2007

MIDDLE EAST E[R]

REF

tn m3

9.8

5.4%

9.8

5.4%

2007

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA E[R]

REF

tn m3

73.2H

40.4%H

73.2H

40.4%H

2007

E[R]

REF

tn m3

1.9

1.0%

1.9

1.0%

2007

E[R]

tn m3

53.3

29.4%

53.3

29.4%

bn m3

2007

504

19,170

504

19,170

2007

238M

9,056M

239

9,056

2007

2,716

2007

638

24,225

638

24,225

2050

644

24,469

2,613

2050

685

26,034

2,805

2050

341

12,953

212

8,061

2050

776

29,478

138

5,248

2007

934

2007

1,178

2007

1,874H

2050

1,120M

120

2050

1,939

209M

2050

239

149

2050

2,496H

444H

GLOBAL REF 2007

INDIA

2007

E[R]

REF

tn m3

14.6M

8.0%M

14.6M

8.0%M

2007

E[R]

REF

tn m3

1.1L

0.6%L

1.1L

0.6%L

2007

tn m3

181

100%

181

100%

bn m3

2007

2,759

104,846 2,759

104,846

2050

4,381

166,489 902

34,285

2007

424

2050

478

OECD PACIFIC

E[R]

REF

tn m3

8.6

4.8%

8.6

4.8%

2007

E[R]

GAS

REF

DEVELOPING ASIA

energy resources & security of supply |

AFRICA

E[R]

tn m3

2.9

1.6%

2.9

1.6%

bn m3

2007

3,472

2007

37L

1,397L

37L

1,397L

2007

184

6,998

184

6,998

2007

156

5,912

156

5,912

2050

167

6,338

2,456

2050

164L

6,227L

107M

4,075M

2050

422

16,020

115

4,368

2050

170

6,467

18L

667L

2007

32L

2007

182

2007

776M

2050

32L

2050

102L

2050

278

2050

946

CO2 EMISSIONS FROM GAS

RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION gas reserves versus global demand, production and consumption. global consumption comparison between the REF and advanced E[R] scenarios.

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050

REF

global consumption

ADV E[R]

global consumption

billion cubic metres

billion tonnes SOURCE GPI/EREC

SOURCE 1970-2008 BP, 2007-2050 GPI/EREC

BILLION TONNES

5,000

20 15

4,000

BILLION m3

158 25

TRILLION CUBIC METRES USED SINCE 2007

181 REF

TRILLION CUBIC METRES PROVEN 2007

3,000

REF

2,000

E[R]

1,000

E[R]

112 TRILLION CUBIC METRES USED SINCE 2007

YEARS 1972 - 2007 PAST

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

2007

YEARS 2007 - 2050

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 9.3: coal reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

9 energy resources & security of supply |

OECD NORTH AMERICA

COAL

REF 2007

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

COAL LEGEND REF REFERENCE SCENARIO

30-40

20-30

10-20

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

5-10

0-5

% RESOURCES GLOBALLY

250,510 29.6%

2007

mn t

16,276 1.9%

mn t

1,882

24,923

1,882

24,923

2007

891

2050

1,351

27,255

134

2050

165

3,122

247

2007

2.4

2050

2.0

0.0

125

2007

0.1

2050

0.2

0.0

E[R]

$ PER TONNE

40-50

E[R] %

mn t

150 50-60

REF %

mn t

2007

175

>60

E[R] %

mn t

LATIN AMERICA

COST coal prices 1988 - 2007 and future predictions for the adv. E[R] scenario. $ per tonne

100

REF

SOURCE MCCLOSKEY COAL INFORMATION SERVICE - EUROPE. PLATTS - US.

90 80

1000 KM

70 60 JAPAN STEAM COAL

RESERVES TOTAL MILLION TONNES [mn t] | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007] CONSUMPTION PER REGION MILLION TONNES [mn t] | PETA JOULE [PJ]

NW EUROPE

30 US CENTRAL APPALACHIAN

CONSUMPTION PER PERSON TONNES [t]

YEARS 1988 - 2007 PAST

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

OECD EUROPE REF 2007

E[R] %

mn t

MIDDLE EAST

mn t

REF %

50,063 5.9%

2007

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA E[R]

REF

mn t

1,386

0.2%L

1,386

0.2%L

mn t

2007

E[R] %

mn t

REF %

114,500 13.5%

mn t

2007

mn t

222,183 26%

mn t

897

14,371

897

14,371

2007

19L

437L

437

2007

2,403H 55,333H 2,403

55,333

2007

532

9,003

532

9,003

2050

710

11,899

231

2050

91L

2,092L

2050

4,148H 95,527H 218H

5,027H

2050

904

13,665

327

E[R] %

2007

mn t

2007

1.2

2007

0.0L

0.0

2007

1.8

2007

1.1

2050

0.9

0.0

2050

0.2L

0.0

2050

2.9H

0.2H

2050

1.9M

0.0

GLOBAL REF mn t

2007

INDIA

2007

E[R] %

REF %

mn t

49,605 5.9%

2007

E[R] %

mn t

REF %

mn t

56,498 6.7%M

2007

846,496 100%

mn t

2007

7,319

135,890 7,319

2050

10,751 225,244 326 t

2007

0.9

2050

1.1

0.0

135,890 7,501

OECD PACIFIC

E[R]

REF

mn t

7,814

0.9%

7,814

0.9%

2007

E[R] %

mn t

COAL

REF mn t

DEVELOPING ASIA

mn t

energy resources & security of supply |

AFRICA

E[R] %

77,661 9%

mn t

2007

188

4,330

188

4,330

2007

459

10,126

459

10,126

2007

330

5,824

330

5,824

2007

565

10,652

565

10,652

2050

303

6,977

427

2050

1,692

36,709

851

2050

868M

17,902

217

2050

518

10,097

2007

0.2

2007

0.4

2007

0.3

2007

2.3

2050

0.2

0.0

2050

1.0

0.0

2050

0.5

0.0

2050

2.4

0.0

13,000

CO2 EMISSIONS FROM COAL comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050

10,000

7,000 6,000

BILLION TONNES

REF

SOURCE 1970-2050 GPI/EREC, 1970-2008 BP.

MILLION TONNES

8,000

million tonnes

9,000

SOURCE GPI/EREC

coal reserves versus global demand, production and consumption. global consumption comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios.

11,000

billion tonnes

RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION

12,000

REF

global consumption

ADV E[R]

global consumption

846

360 REF

BILLION TONNES PROVEN 2007

BILLION TONNES USED SINCE 2007

5,000

E[R]

4,000

159

3,000

BILLION TONNES USED SINCE 2007

10 2,000

E[R]

1,000

YEARS 2007 - 2050

YEARS 1970 - 2007 PAST

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

2007

YEARS 2007 - 2050 FUTURE

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 9.4: nuclear reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

REF t

NUCLEAR

NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE

NUCLEAR LEGEND

E[R] %

REF %

2007

680,109 21.5%

TWh

2007

941H 1,259H

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2040

2050

LATIN AMERICA

680,109 21.5%

2007

2007 2050

E[R] %

95,045 3%

TWh

20 60

PHASED OUT BY 2030

2007

10,260H

2007

214

2050

13,735H

2050

655

kWh

2007

2,094H

2050

2,181

kWh

2007

2050

100

110 100

>30

20-30

10-20

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO

5-10

0-5

% RESOURCES GLOBALLY

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

$US/LBS

energy resources & security of supply |

OECD NORTH AMERICA

1000 KM

60 50

RESERVES TOTAL TONNES | SHARE IN % OF GLOBAL TOTAL [END OF 2007] 40

GENERATION PER REGION TERAWATT HOURS [TWh] CONSUMPTION PER REGION PETA JOULE [PJ] CONSUMPTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOURS [kWh]

20 10 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

OECD EUROPE

MIDDLE EAST

REF 2007

2007 2050

E[R] %

REF %

56,445 1.8%

TWh

2007

925 635M

PHASED OUT BY 2030

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA E[R]

REF

370L

0%L

370L

0%L

TWh

2007

2050

14L

NO NUCLEAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

2007

E[R] %

REF %

35,060 1.1%

TWh

2007

2050

817

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

E[R] %

1,043,687H 32.9%H 1,043,687H 32.9%H

TWh

2007

293M

2050

463

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

10,096

2007

678

2007

3,197M

2050

6,927M

2050

153L

2050

8,913

2050

5,051

kWh

2007

1,714

2007

861M

2050

1,105M

2050

573

2050

1,490

GLOBAL REF t

2007

INDIA REF

E[R]

DEVELOPING ASIA REF

470,312M 14.8%M 470,312M 14.8%M

TWh

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2025

2007

REF

40,980

1.3%

40,980

1.3%

TWh

2007

2050

172

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

TWh

2007

2,719

2050

4,413

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

2007

29,664

2050

48,142

kWh

2007

418

2050

481

E[R]

REF

5,630

0.2%

5,630

0.2%

TWh

2007

2050

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

741,600 23.4%

TWh

2007

407

2050

868

NUCLEAR POWER PHASED OUT BY 2045

123

2007

183

2007

476

2007

4,437

2050

491

2050

1,876

2050

873

2050

9,469

kWh

2007

2050

23L

2050

172

2050

REACTORS

PRODUCTION

yellow cake prices 1987 2008 and future predictions comparing the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios tonnes

age and number of reactors worldwide

nuclear generation versus installed capacity. comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenrios. TWh and GW

25 20

kWh

2007

2,030

2050

4,827H

REF

global generation (TWh)

REF

global capacity (GW)

ADV E[R]

global generation (TWh)

ADV E[R]

global capacity (GW)

TWh

4,500 4,000

NO. OF REACTORS

REF

kWh

SOURCES GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL

SOURCES IAEA

E[R]

2007

E[R] %

2007

SOURCES REF: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY/E[R]: DEVELOPMENTS APPLIED IN THE GES-PROJECT

3,169,238 100%

0ECD PACIFIC

COST

3,500 TWh

600

3,000

500

TWh

2,500

15 10

2,000

400

1,500

300 200

1,000 5

100

AGE OF REACTORS IN YEARS

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

0 2007

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

YEARS 2008 - 2050 FUTURE

500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

YEARS 1970 - 2008 PAST

3,169,238 100%

YEARS 2007 - 2050

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

NUCLEAR

2007

E[R]

energy resources & security of supply |

AFRICA

E[R] %

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

9.5 renewable energy

definition of types of energy resource potential57

Nature offers a variety of freely available options for producing energy. Their exploitation is mainly a question of how to convert sunlight, wind, biomass or water into electricity, heat or power as efficiently, sustainably and cost-effectively as possible.

theoretical potential The theoretical potential identifies the physical upper limit of the energy available from a certain source. For solar energy, for example, this would be the total solar radiation falling on a particular surface.

On average, the energy in the sunshine that reaches the earth is about one kilowatt per square metre worldwide. According to the Research Association for Solar Power, power is gushing from renewable energy sources at a rate of 2,850 times more energy than is needed in the world. In one day, the sunlight which reaches the earth produces enough energy to satisfy the world’s current power requirements for eight years. Even though only a percentage of that potential is technically accessible, this is still enough to provide just under six times more power than the world currently requires.

conversion potential This is derived from the annual efficiency of the respective conversion technology. It is therefore not a strictly defined value, since the efficiency of a particular technology depends on technological progress.

energy sources and security of supply |

Before looking at the role renewable energies can play in the range of scenarios in this report, however, it is worth understanding the upper limits of their potential. To start with, the overall technical potential of renewable energy – the amount that can be produced taking into account the primary resources, the socio-geographical constraints and the technical losses in the conversion process – is huge and several times higher than current total energy demand. Assessments of the global technical potential vary significantly from 2,477 Exajoules per annum (EJ/a) (Nitsch 2004) up to 15,857 EJ/a (UBA 2009). Based on the global primary energy demand in 2007 (IEA 2009) of 503 EJ/a, the total technical potential of renewable energy sources at the upper limit would exceed demand by a factor of 32. However, barriers to the growth of renewable energy technologies may come from economical, political and infrastructural constraints. That is why the technical potential will never be realised in total.

technical potential This takes into account additional restrictions regarding the area that is realistically available for energy generation. Technological, structural and ecological restrictions, as well as legislative requirements, are accounted for. economic potential The proportion of the technical potential that can be utilised economically. For biomass, for example, those quantities are included that can be exploited economically in competition with other products and land uses. sustainable potential This limits the potential of an energy source based on evaluation of ecological and socio-economic factors.

figure 9.1: energy resources of the world

SOLAR ENERGY 2850 TIMES

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Assessing long term technical potentials is subject to various uncertainties. The distribution of the theoretical resources, such as the global wind speed or the productivity of energy crops, is not always well analysed. The geographical availability is subject to variations such as land use change, future planning decisions on where certain technologies are allowed, and accessibility of resources, for example underground geothermal energy. Technical performance may take longer to achieve than expected. There are also uncertainties in terms of the consistency of the data provided in studies, and underlying assumptions are often not explained in detail. The meta study by the DLR (German Aerospace Agency), Wuppertal Institute and Ecofys, commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency, provides a comprehensive overview of the technical renewable energy potential by technologies and world region.58 This survey analysed ten major studies of global and regional potentials by organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme and a range of academic institutions. Each of the major renewable energy sources was assessed, with special attention paid to the effect of environmental constraints on their overall potential. The study provides data for the years 2020, 2030 and 2050 (see Table 8.3). The complexity of calculating renewable energy potentials is particularly great because these technologies are comparatively young and their exploitation involves changes to the way in which energy is both generated and distributed. Whilst a calculation of the theoretical and geographical potentials has only a few dynamic parameters, the technical potential is dependent on a number of uncertainties. 88

WIND ENERGY 200 TIMES

BIOMASS 20 TIMES

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY 5 TIMES

HYDROPOWER 1 TIMES ENERGY RESOURCES OF THE WORLD

WAVE-TIDAL ENERGY 2 TIMES

POTENTIAL OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES ALL RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES PROVIDE 3078 TIMES THE CURRENT GLOBAL ENERGY NEEDS

source WBGU

57 WBGU (GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE). 58 DLR, WUPPERTAL INSTITUTE, ECOFYS, ‘ROLE AND POTENTIAL OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY’,COMMISSIONED BY GERMAN FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, FKZ 3707 41 108, MARCH 2009;

image SOLON AG PHOTOVOLTAICS FACILITY IN ARNSTEIN OPERATING 1,500 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SOLAR “MOVERS”. LARGEST TRACKING SOLAR FACILITY IN THE WORLD. EACH “MOVER” CAN BE BOUGHT AS A PRIVATE INVESTMENT FROM THE S.A.G. SOLARSTROM AG, BAYERN, GERMANY. image WIND ENERGY PARK NEAR DAHME. WIND TURBINE IN THE SNOW OPERATED BY VESTAS.

table 9.3: technical potential by renewable energy technology for 2020, 2030 and 2050 TECHNICAL POTENTIAL ELECTRICITY EJ/YEAR ELECTRIC POWER SOLAR CSP

SOLAR HYDRO PV POWER

WIND ONSHORE

WIND OCEAN GEOOFF- ENERGY THERMAL SHORE ELECTRIC

TECHNICAL POTENTIAL HEAT EJ/A

TECHNICAL POTENTIAL PRIMARY ENERGY EJ/A

GEOSOLAR THERMAL WATER DIRECT USES HEATING

BIOMASS BIOMASS RESIDUES ENERGY CROPS

TOTAL

World 2020

1,125.9 5,156.1

47.5

368.6

25.6

66.2

4.5

498.5

113.1

58.6

43.4

7,505

World 2030

1,351.0 6,187.3

48.5

361.7

35.9

165.6

13.4

1,486.6

117.3

68.3

61.1

9,897

World 2050

1,688.8 8,043.5

50.0

378.9

57.4

331.2

44.8

4,955.2

123.4

87.6

96.5 15,857

0.1

0.8

0.1

0.7

0.1

9.9

0.2

World energy demand 2007: 502.9 EJ/aa Technical potential in 2050 versus world primary energy demand 2007.

3.4

16.0

0.2

source DLR, WUPPERTAL INSTITUTE, ECOFYS; ROLE AND POTENTIAL OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY; COMMISSIONED BY THE GERMAN FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FKZ 3707 41 108, MARCH 2009; POTENTIAL VERSUS ENERGY DEMAND: S. TESKE a IEA 2009

Given the large unexploited resources which exist, even without having reached the full development limits of the various technologies, it can be concluded that the technical potential is not a limiting factor to expansion of renewable energy generation.

As important as the technical potential of worldwide renewable energy sources is their market potential. This term is often used in different ways. The general understanding is that market potential means the total amount of renewable energy that can be implemented in the market taking into account the demand for energy, competing technologies, any subsidies available as well as the current and future costs of renewable energy sources. The market potential may therefore in theory be larger than the economic potential. To be realistic, however, market potential analyses have to take into account the behaviour of private economic agents under specific prevailing conditions, which are of course partly shaped by public authorities. The energy policy framework in a particular country or region will have a profound impact on the expansion of renewable energies.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

It will not be necessary to exploit the entire technical potential, however, nor would this be unproblematic. Implementation of renewable energies has to respect sustainability criteria in order to achieve a sound future energy supply. Public acceptance is crucial, especially bearing in mind that the decentralised character of many renewable energy technologies will move their operations closer to consumers. Without public acceptance, market expansion will be

difficult or even impossible. The use of biomass, for example, has become controversial in recent years as it is seen as competing with other land uses, food production or nature conservation. Sustainability criteria will have a huge influence on whether bioenergy in particular can play a central role in future energy supply.

energy sources and security of supply |

A technology breakthrough, for example, could have a dramatic impact, changing the technical potential assessment within a very short time frame. Considering the huge dynamic of technology development, many existing studies are based on out of date information. The estimates in the DLR study could therefore be updated using more recent data, for example significantly increased average wind turbine capacity and output, which would increase the technical potentials still further.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 9.5: solar reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

63,658 KM2

9 energy resources & security of supply |

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

13,675 KM2

SOLAR

OECD NORTH AMERICA REF

RENEWABLE RESOURCE

SOLAR

SOURCE DLR

PRODUCTION PER REGION % OF GLOBAL SHARE | PETA JOULE [PJ] PRODUCTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOUR [kWh]

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

2050

0.52

kWh

2007

2050

16,000

PRODUCTION

15,000 13,000

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [electricity]

12,000

TWh/a

14,000

gas power plant

214

14L

3,799L

kWh

8,508

cents/kWh

kWh

1,758

36.11%

11,000 SOURCE EPIA

SOURCE GPI/EREC

10,000

27.28%

TWh/a

0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0

9,000 8,000 6,000

15.17%

5,000

ADV E[R] pv/concentrating solar power

4,000

REF

3,000

pv/concentrating solar power pla

% total solar share

2,000 1,000

4.95%

1.92%

800 600

1.59% 0.87%

400 200

1.17% 0.03% 0.03%

0.28% 0.53%

YEARS 2007 - 2050

646

0.03

YEARS 2007 - 2050

2050

RADIATION IN kW/h PER SQUARE METER

2050

2007

2040

400600

2030

0200

1000 KM

2007

E[R]

2020

200400

600800

17,683

2015

8001000

25M

2007

10001200

1,343

2050

12001400

1.04M

2040

14001600

2050

2030

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

16001800

64H

coal

2020

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO

18002000

0.06M

REF PJ

concentrating solar power plants (CSP)

comparison between renewable and non renewable energies 2007 - 2050

2010

22002400

20002200

2007

USD CENTS/kWh

24002600

COST

2007

26002800

E[R]

kWh

LEGEND

LATIN AMERICA

OECD EUROPE

MIDDLE EAST

REF

E[R]

2007

0.09M

2050

1.42H

REF PJ

1,173

10,680

kWh

2007

36M

2050

567

E[R]

2007

0.17H

2050

0.62

kWh

REF PJ

319

53H

14,696

kWh

5,160M

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA

2007

50H

2050

251

E[R]

2007

0.22L

182L

2050

0.95

1,754H

kWh

21,628H

kWh

11,552H

REF PJ

2007

0.01L

2050

0.10L

kWh

2007

2050

342M

E[R]

63L

8,34

kWh

4,213

2007

2050

2,894 kWh

2,586

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

10,419 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

GLOBAL

77,859 KM2

38,447 KM2

REF NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

52,907 KM

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

E[R]

2007

0.10

402

2050

1.03

6,322

23.26

108,367

kWh

47,743 KM

2007

2050

192

kWh

2,468

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

35,764 KM

9 NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

32,392 KM2

390,122 KM2

NEEDED SOLAR AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

17,257 KM2

INDIA REF

OTHER ASIA

E[R]

2007

0.00

2050

0.94

405

9,934

kWh

2007

0.2

2050

56L

REF PJ

E[R]

2007

0.02L

2050

0.23

182

kWh

2007

2050

REF PJ

13,262M

kWh

1,380

6,000

2,282

PRODUCTION

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [electricity]

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [heat supply]

4,000

SOURCE GPI/EREC

2007

0.01L

2050

0.58

405

2007

2050

50,000 45,000

8,998

2007

0.08

30M

2050

1.14

466M

4,794

2050

719H

80%

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [primary energy]

7,405

ADV E[R]

solar

ADV E[R]

renewables

REF

solar

REF

renewables

% total solar share

60%

kWh

2007

PRODUCTION

225,000

kWh

1,649L

250,000

E[R]

kWh

PJ 200,000 SOURCE GPI/EREC

SOURCE GPI/EREC

175,000

22.54%

35,000

REF PJ

kWh

33.58%

40,000

3,500

275,000

CAPACITY

4,500

30,000

150,000

25,000

125,000

5,000

E[R]

kWh

55,000

5,500

OECD PACIFIC

SOLAR

AFRICA

39%

3,000 ADV E[R] 15%

r plants (CSP) 2,500 23%

100,000

15%

REF

10,000

1,000

solar collectors

75,000

solar collectors

% total solar share

14%

50,000

13% 13%

14%

4.48% 1.63% 0.27% 0.27%

0.35% 0.54%

0.94%

1.25%

1.51%

0.1% 0.1%

YEARS 2007 - 2050

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

2050

2040

2030

2020

2015

2007

YEARS 2007 - 2050

0.6% 0.2%

0 2007

25,000

2015

5,000

2007

REF

500

15%

2.2%

7.2%

0.3%

0.6%

2020

ADV E[R]

15,000

1,500

23.3%

14%

16%

0.5%

2050

12.17%

2040

20,000

2,000

2030

ants (CSP)

energy resources & security of supply |

SOLAR AREA NEEDED TO SUPPORT ADV E[R] 2050 SCENARIO

YEARS 2007 - 2050

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

map 9.6: wind reference scenario and the advanced energy [r]evolution scenario WORLDWIDE SCENARIO

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

159,459 KM2

9 energy resources & security of supply |

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

60,791 KM2

WIND

OECD NORTH AMERICA REF

RENEWABLE RESOURCE

WIND >11

10-11

9-10

8-9

7-8

6-7

E[R]

2007

0.12M

136

2050

1.71

2,210

2007

2050

1,064

11.11

7,805H

E[R]

2007

0.02

2050

0.65

266

kWh

10.54

2,878

kWh

3,755

2007

2050

123

kWh

1,332

11,000

wind

COST

coal

comparison between renewable and non renewable energies 2007 - 2050

REF REFERENCE SCENARIO

REF PJ

kWh

LEGEND

LATIN AMERICA

10,000

gas power plant

9,000

$cents/kWh

E[R] ADVANCED ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION SCENARIO

8,000 SOURCE GWEC

2,000 1,000

0.88% 0.88%

YEARS 2007 - 2050

4.87%

3.70 2.78% 2020

H HIGHEST | M MIDDLE | L LOWEST

11.07%

3,000

2010

PRODUCTION PER PERSON KILOWATT HOUR [kWh]

4,000

2007

PRODUCTION PER REGION % OF GLOBAL SHARE | PETA JOULE [PJ]

5,000

2050

SOURCE DLR

6,000

0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

2040

AVERAGE WIND SPEED IN METRES PER SECOND

2030

0-1

2020

1-2

1000 KM

2010

TWh/a

7,000

3-4

USD CENTS/kWh

4-5

2007

5-6

OECD EUROPE

MIDDLE EAST

REF

E[R]

2007

0.49H

379H

2050

4.14H

REF

3,420H

10.41

4,867

kWh

2007

0.00L

2050

0.26L

133L

kWh

2007

195H

2050

1,652H

E[R]

REF

4.78

1,314

kWh

2,352M

2007

2050

105

TRANSITION ECONOMIES

CHINA E[R]

2007

0.04

2050

0.66

1,220M

kWh

6.85M

kWh

1,033

2007

2050

238

REF PJ

7,340

E[R]

2007

0.00

2050

0.56

kWh

360

9.83

3,413

kWh

1,430

2007

2050

322M

kWh

3,050

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

64,644 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

140,621 KM2

96,571 KM

GLOBAL REF

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

27,757 KM

E[R]

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

2007

0.13

624

69,214 KM2

2050

1.16

9,058

8.38

39,029

kWh

2007

2050

275

kWh

1,182

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

17,029 KM

9 NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

58,118 KM2

750,859 KM2

NEEDED WIND AREA TO SUPPORT ENTIRE REGION

56,656 KM2

INDIA REF

ASIA

E[R]

2007

0.02

2050

0.47

202

3.00L

kWh

2007

2050

28L

REF PJ

1,073L

E[R]

2007

0.17

42M

2050

0.48

374

kWh

6.38

kWh

149L

2007

2050

CAPACITY

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [electricity]

3,500

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [electricity]

3,000

E[R]

2007

0.01

2050

0.69

475

8.75

kWh

600

REF

wind

2007

2050

REF PJ

3,557

total wind share

611

80%

kWh

5,089H

ADV E[R]

wind

ADV E[R]

renewables

REF

wind

REF

renewables

15% 15% 14%

14%

75,000 50,000

13% 13%

14% 8.38% 6.37%

500

4.22% 0.82%

1.00%

1.16%

0.62%

2050

1.98%

2040

0.81% 0.45%

2030

0.13% 0.13%

2020

25,000

YEARS 2007 - 2050

2010

2007

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

0 2007

2050

23%

5.00%

2040

33M

39%

100,000

1,000

2030

2007

125,000 1,500

5.41%

YEARS 2007 - 2050

15.47H 3,294M

2,000

16%

4.48%

396

SOURCE GPI/GWEC

175,000

wind

REF

0.97M

60%

GW REF

2050

comparison between the REF and adv. E[R] scenarios 2007 - 2050 [primary energy]

150,000

PRODUCTION

225,000

2,500

wind

0.06

275,000

SOURCE GPI/GWEC

ADV E[R]

2007

kWh

652

250,000

200,000

SOURCE GWEC

20.16%

kWh

wind

E[R]

25.77%

3,488

ADV E[R]

PRODUCTION

TWh

REF PJ

kWh

4,000 28.65%

OECD PACIFIC

WIND

AFRICA

energy resources & security of supply |

WIND AREA NEEDED TO SUPPORT ADV E[R] 2050 SCENARIO

YEARS 2007 - 2050

DESIGN WWW.ONEHEMISPHERE.SE CONCEPT SVEN TESKE/GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

figure 9.2: ranges of potential for different biomass types

figure 9.3: bio energy potential analysis from different authors

2100

(‘EFFICIENCY’ = REDUCTION COMPARED TO THE REFERENCE SCENARIO)

energy crops

1,400

residues 1,200

2050

energy crops annual forest growth

1,000

animal residues

800

forest residues

600

crop residues 400

2020-30

energy crops animal residues

200

forest residues

EJ/yr 0 Hall et al, Kaltschmitt 1993 and Hartmann, 2001

crop residues

Dessus et al 1993

Bauen et al, 2004

Smeets et al, Smeets et al, Fischer & Fischer & 2007a (low, 2007a (high, Schrattenhozer, Schrattenhozer, own calc.) own calc.) 2001(low, own 2001(high, calc.) own calc.)

energy sources and security of supply |

no year

energy crops No year

2050

2020-30

residues energy crops annual forest growth 0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

EJ/yr

•• ••

OECD NORTH AMERICA OECD EUROPE OECD PACIFIC CIS AND NON OECD EUROPE

•• •

CARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICA ASIA AFRICA

POTENTIAL OF ENERGY CROPS

source GERMAN BIOMASS RESEARCH CENTRE (DBFZ)

9.5.1 the global potential for sustainable biomass

Looking at the contribution of different types of material to the total biomass potential, the majority of studies agree that the most promising resource is energy crops from dedicated plantations. Only six give a regional breakdown, however, and only a few quantify all types of residues separately. Quantifying the potential of minor fractions, such as animal residues and organic wastes, is difficult as the data is relatively poor.

As part of background research for the Advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario, Greenpeace commissioned the German Biomass Research Centre, the former Institute for Energy and Environment, to investigate the worldwide potential for energy crops up to 2050. In addition, information has been compiled from scientific studies of the global potential and from data derived from state of the art remote sensing techniques, such as satellite images. A summary of the report’s findings is given below; references can be found in the full report .59 9.5.2 assessment of biomass potential studies Various studies have looked historically at the potential for bio energy and come up with widely differing results. Comparison between them is difficult because they use different definitions of the various biomass resource fractions. This problem is particularly significant in relation to forest derived biomass. Most research has focused almost exclusively on energy crops, as their development is considered to be more significant for satisfying the demand for bio energy. The result is that the potential for using forest residues (wood left over after harvesting) is often underestimated. Data from 18 studies has been examined, with a concentration on those which report the potential for biomass residues. Among these there were ten comprehensive assessments with more or less detailed documentation of the methodology. The majority focus on the long-term potential for 2050 and 2100. Little information is available for 2020 and 2030. Most of the studies were published within the last ten years. Figure 8.2 shows the variations in potential by biomass type from the different studies. 94

9.5.3 potential of energy crops Apart from the utilisation of biomass from residues, the cultivation of energy crops in agricultural production systems is of greatest significance. The technical potential for growing energy crops has been calculated on the assumption that demand for food takes priority. As a first step the demand for arable and grassland for food production has been calculated for each of 133 countries in different scenarios. These scenarios are: • Business as usual (BAU) scenario: Present agricultural activity continues for the foreseeable future • Basic scenario: No forest clearing; reduced use of fallow areas for agriculture • Sub-scenario 1: Basic scenario plus expanded ecological protection areas and reduced crop yields • Sub-scenario 2: Basic scenario plus food consumption reduced in industrialised countries • Sub-scenario 3: Combination of sub-scenarios 1 and 2. 59 SEIDENBERGER T., THRÄN D., OFFERMANN R., SEYFERT U., BUCHHORN M. AND ZEDDIES J. (2008). GLOBAL BIOMASS POTENTIALS. INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT OF DATA. REMOTE SENSING IN BIOMASS POTENTIAL RESEARCH. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC ENERGY CROP POTENTIAL. GERMAN BIOMASS RESEARCH CENTRE (DBFZ). FOR GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL. 137 P.

image A NEWLY DEFORESTED AREA WHICH HAS BEEN CLEARED FOR AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION IN THE AMAZON, BRAZIL.

In a next step the surpluses of agricultural areas were classified either as arable land or grassland. On grassland, hay and grass silage are produced, on arable land fodder silage and Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) (such as fast-growing willow or poplar) are cultivated. Silage of green fodder and grass are assumed to be used for biogas production, wood from SRC and hay from grasslands for the production of heat, electricity and synthetic fuels. Country specific yield variations were taken into consideration.

image THE BIOENERGY VILLAGE OF JUEHNDE WHICH WAS THE FIRST COMMUNITY IN GERMANY TO PRODUCE ALL ITS ENERGY NEEDED FOR HEATING AND ELECTRICITY, WITH CO2 NEUTRAL BIOMASS.

areas, no surplus land is available for energy crop production in Central America, Asia and Africa. The EU, North America and Australia, however, have relatively stable potentials. The results of this exercise show that the availability of biomass resources is not only driven by the effect on global food supply but the conservation of natural forests and other biospheres. So the assessment of future biomass potential is only the starting point of a discussion about the integration of bioenergy into a renewable energy system.

The result is that the global biomass potential from energy crops in 2050 falls within a range from 6 EJ in Sub-scenario 1 up to 97 EJ in the BAU scenario. The best example of a country that would see a very different future under these scenarios in 2050 is Brazil. Under the BAU scenario large agricultural areas would be released by deforestation, whereas in the Basic and Sub 1 scenarios this would be forbidden, and no agricultural areas would be available for energy crops. By contrast a high potential would be available under Sub-scenario 2 as a consequence of reduced meat consumption. Because of their high populations and relatively small agricultural

figure 9.4: world wide energy crop potentials in different scenarios

100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000

POTENTIAL OF ENERGY CROPS

40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000

2010

2015

2020

The Energy [R]evolution takes a precautionary approach to the future use of biofuels. This reflects growing concerns about the greenhouse gas balance of many biofuel sources, and also the risks posed by expanded biofuels crop production to biodiversity (forests, wetlands and grasslands) and food security. In particular, research commissioned by Greenpeace in the development of the Energy [R]evolution suggests that there will be acute pressure on land for food production and habitat protection in 2050. As a result, the Energy [R]evolution does not include any biofuels from energy crops at 2050, restricting feedstocks to a limited quantity of forest and agricultural residues. It should be stressed, however, that this conservative approach is based on an assessment of today’s technologies and their associated risks. The development of advanced forms of biofuels which do not involve significant landtake, are demonstrably sustainable in terms of their impacts on the

Sub scenario 3

Sub scenario 2

Sub scenario 1

Basic scenario

BAU scenario

Sub scenario 3

Sub scenario 2

Sub scenario 1

Basic scenario

BAU scenario

Sub scenario 3

Sub scenario 2

Sub scenario 1

Basic scenario

BAU scenario

Sub scenario 3

Sub scenario 2

Sub scenario 1

Basic scenario

BAU scenario

PJ 0

•• •

9 energy sources and security of supply |

The total global biomass potential (energy crops and residues) therefore ranges in 2020 from 66 EJ (Sub-scenario 1) up to 110 EJ (Sub-scenario 2), and in 2050 from 94 EJ (Sub-scenario 1) to 184 EJ (BAU scenario). These numbers are conservative and include a level of uncertainty, especially for 2050. The reasons for this uncertainty are the potential effects of climate change, possible changes in the worldwide political and economic situation, a higher yield as a result of changed agricultural techniques and/or faster development in plant breeding.

BIOGAS SRC HAY

2050

wider environment, and have clear greenhouse gas benefits, should be an objective of public policy, and would provide additional flexibility in the renewable energy mix. Concerns have also been raised about how countries account for the emissions associated with biofuels production and combustion. The lifecycle emissions of different biofuels can vary enormously. Rules developed under the Kyoto Protocol mean that under many circumstances, countries are not held responsible for all the emissions associated with land-use change or management. At the same time, under the Kyoto Protocol and associated instruments such as the European Emissions Trading scheme, biofuels is ‘zero-rated’ for emissions as an energy source. To ensure that biofuels are produced and used in ways which maximize its greenhouse gas saving potential, these accounting problems will need to be resolved in future. 95

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

energy technologies NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES

9 10

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

“the technology is here, all we need “the technology is political will.” is here, all we need CHRIS SUPORTER, AUSTRALIA

is political will.”

CHRIS JONES SUPORTER AUSTRALIA

FOSSIL FUEL TECHNOLOGIES

image BIOGAS FACILITY “SCHRADEN BIOGAS” IN GROEDEN NEAR DRESDEN, GERMANY.

GLOBAL

This chapter describes the range of technologies available now and in the future to satisfy the world’s energy demand. The Energy [R]evolution scenario is focused on the potential for energy savings and renewable sources, primarily in the electricity and heat generating sectors. 10.1 fossil fuel technologies The most commonly used fossil fuels for power generation around the world are coal and gas. Oil is still used where other fuels are not readily available, for example islands or remote sites, or where there is an indigenous resource. Together, coal and gas currently account for over half of global electricity supply.

More fundamental changes have been made to the way coal is burned to both improve its efficiency and further reduce emissions of pollutants. These include: • integrated gasification combined cycle: Coal is not burned directly but reacted with oxygen and steam to form a synthetic gas composed mainly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This is cleaned and then burned in a gas turbine to generate electricity and produce steam to drive a steam turbine. IGCC improves the efficiency of coal combustion from 38-40% up to 50%. • supercritical and ultrasupercritical: These power plants operate at higher temperatures than conventional combustion, again increasing efficiency towards 50%. • fluidised bed combustion: Coal is burned in a reactor comprised of a bed through which gas is fed to keep the fuel in a turbulent state. This improves combustion, heat transfer and the recovery of waste products. By elevating pressures within a bed, a high-pressure gas stream can be used to drive a gas turbine, generating electricity. Emissions of both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide can be reduced substantially. • pressurised pulverised coal combustion: Mainly being developed in Germany, this is based on the combustion of a finely ground cloud of coal particles creating high pressure, high temperature steam for power generation. The hot flue gases are used to generate electricity in a similar way to the combined cycle system.

gas combustion technologies Natural gas can be used for electricity generation through the use of either gas or steam turbines. For the equivalent amount of heat, gas produces about 45% less carbon dioxide during its combustion than coal. Gas turbine plants use the heat from gases to directly operate the turbine. Natural gas fuelled turbines can start rapidly, and are therefore often used to supply energy during periods of peak demand, although at higher cost than baseload plants. Particularly high efficiencies can be achieved through combining gas turbines with a steam turbine in combined cycle mode. In a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant, a gas turbine generator produces electricity and the exhaust gases from the turbine are then used to make steam to generate additional electricity. The efficiency of modern CCGT power stations can be more than 50%. Most new gas power plants built since the 1990s have been of this type. At least until the recent increase in global gas prices, CCGT power stations have been the cheapest option for electricity generation in many countries. Capital costs have been substantially lower than for coal and nuclear plants and construction time shorter. carbon reduction technologies Whenever a fossil fuel is burned, carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced. Depending on the type of power plant, a large quantity of the gas will dissipate into the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. A hard coal power plant discharges roughly 720 grammes of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour, a modern gas-fired plant about 370g CO2 /kWh. One method, currently under development, to mitigate the CO2 impact of fossil fuel combustion is called carbon capture and storage (CCS). It involves capturing CO2 from power plant smokestacks, compressing the captured gas for transport via pipeline or ship and pumping it into underground geological formations for permanent storage. While frequently touted as the solution to the carbon problem inherent in fossil fuel combustion, CCS for coal-fired power stations is unlikely to be ready for at least another decade. Despite the ‘proof of concept’ experiments currently in progress, as a fully integrated process the technology remains unproven in relation to all of its operational components. Suitable and effective capture technology has not been developed and is unlikely to be commercially available any time soon; effective and safe long-term storage on the scale necessary has not been demonstrated; and serious concerns attach to the safety aspects of transport and injection of CO2 into designated formations, while long term retention cannot reliably be assured.

FOSSIL FUEL TECHNOLOGIES

A number of technologies have been introduced to improve the environmental performance of conventional coal combustion. These include coal cleaning (to reduce the ash content) and various ‘bolton’ or ‘end-of-pipe’ technologies to reduce emissions of particulates, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, the main pollutants resulting from coal firing apart from carbon dioxide. Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD), for example, most commonly involves ‘scrubbing’ the flue gases using an alkaline sorbent slurry, which is predominantly lime or limestone based.

Other potential future technologies involve the increased use of coal gasification. Underground Coal Gasification, for example, involves converting deep underground unworked coal into a combustible gas which can be used for industrial heating, power generation or the manufacture of hydrogen, synthetic natural gas or other chemicals. The gas can be processed to remove CO2 before it is passed on to end users. Demonstration projects are underway in Australia, Europe, China and Japan.

energy technologies |

coal combustion technologies In a conventional coal-fired power station, pulverised or powdered coal is blown into a combustion chamber where it is burned at high temperature. The resulting heat is used to convert water flowing through pipes lining the boiler into steam. This drives a steam turbine and generates electricity. Over 90% of global coal-fired capacity uses this system. Coal power stations can vary in capacity from a few hundred megawatts up to several thousand.

image WIND TURBINES AT THE NAN WIND FARM IN NAN’AO. GUANGDONG PROVINCE HAS ONE OF THE BEST WIND RESOURCES IN CHINA AND IS ALREADY HOME TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL SCALE WIND FARMS.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

Deploying the technology on coal power plants is likely to double construction costs, increase fuel consumption by 10-40%, consume more water, generate more pollutants and ultimately require the public sector to ensure that the CO2 stays where it has been buried. In a similar way to the disposal of nuclear waste, CCS envisages creating a scheme whereby future generations monitor in perpetuity the climate pollution produced by their predecessors. carbon dioxide storage In order to benefit the climate, captured CO2 has to be stored somewhere permanently. Current thinking is that it can be pumped under the earth’s surface at a depth of over 3,000 feet into geological formations, such as saline aquifers. However, the volume of CO2 that would need to be captured and stored is enormous - a single coal-fired power plant can produce 7 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

10 energy technologies |

It is estimated that a single ‘stabilisation wedge’ of CCS (enough to reduce carbon emissions by 1 billion metric tonnes per year by 2050) would require a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow out of the ground - and in addition to the associated infrastructure to compress, transport and pump it underground. It is still not clear that it will be technically feasible to capture and bury this much carbon, both in terms of the number of storage sites and whether they will be located close enough to power plants.

FOSSIL FUEL TECHNOLOGIES

Even if it is feasible to bury hundreds of thousands of megatons of CO2 there is no way to guarantee that storage locations will be appropriately designed and managed over the timescales required. The world has limited experience of storing CO2 underground; the longest running storage project at Sleipner in the Norwegian Sea/North Sea began operation only in 1996. This is particularly concerning because as long as CO2 is present in geological sites, there is a risk of leakage. Although leakages are unlikely to occur in well-characterised, managed and monitored sites, permanent storage stability cannot be guaranteed since tectonic activity and natural leakage over long timeframes are impossible to predict. Sudden leakage of CO2 can be fatal. Carbon dioxide is not itself poisonous, and is contained (approx. 0.04%) in the air we breathe. But as concentrations increase it displaces the vital oxygen in the air. Air with concentrations of 7 to 8% CO2 by volume causes death by suffocation after 30 to 60 minutes. There are also health hazards when large amounts of CO2 are explosively released. Although the gas normally disperses quickly after leaking, it can accumulate in depressions in the landscape or closed buildings, since carbon dioxide is heavier than air. It is equally dangerous when it escapes more slowly and without being noticed in residential areas, for example in cellars below houses. The dangers from such leaks are known from natural volcanic CO2 degassing. Gas escaping at the Lake Nyos crater lake in Cameroon, Africa in 1986 killed over 1,700 people. At least ten people have died in the Lazio region of Italy in the last 20 years as a result of CO2 being released.

carbon storage and climate change targets Can carbon storage contribute to climate change reduction targets? In order to avoid dangerous climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by between 2015 and 2020 and fall dramatically thereafter. Power plants capable of capturing and storing CO2 are still being developed, however, and won’t become a reality for at least another decade, if ever. This means that even if CCS works, the technology would not make any substantial contribution towards protecting the climate before 2020. Power plant CO2 storage will also not be of any great help in attaining the goal of at least an 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 in OECD countries. Even if CCS were to be available in 2020, most of the world’s new power plants will have just finished being modernised. All that could then be done would be for existing power plants to be retrofitted and CO2 captured from the waste gas flow. Retrofitting power plants would be an extremely expensive exercise. ‘Capture ready’ power plants are equally unlikely to increase the likelihood of retrofitting existing fleets with capture technology. The conclusion reached in the Energy [R]evolution scenario is that renewable energy sources are already available, in many cases cheaper, and lack the negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel exploitation, transport and processing. It is renewable energy together with energy efficiency and energy conservation – and not carbon capture and storage – that has to increase worldwide so that the primary cause of climate change – the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas – is stopped. Greenpeace opposes any CCS efforts which lead to: • Public financial support to CCS, at the expense of funding renewable energy development and investment in energy efficiency. • The stagnation of renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy conservation improvements • Inclusion of CCS in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as it would divert funds away from the stated intention of the mechanism, and cannot be considered clean development under any coherent definition of this term. • The promotion of this possible future technology as the only major solution to climate change, thereby leading to new fossil fuel developments – especially lignite and black coal-fired power plants, and an increase in emissions in the short to medium term.

10.2 nuclear technologies Generating electricity from nuclear power involves transferring the heat produced by a controlled nuclear fission reaction into a conventional steam turbine generator. The nuclear reaction takes place inside a core and surrounded by a containment vessel of varying design and structure. Heat is removed from the core by a coolant (gas or water) and the reaction controlled by a moderating element or “moderator”. Across the world over the last two decades there has been a general slowdown in building new nuclear power stations. This has been caused by a variety of factors: fear of a nuclear accident, following the events at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Monju, increased scrutiny of economics and environmental factors, such as waste management and radioactive discharges. nuclear reactor designs: evolution and safety issues At mid 2011 there were 432 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries around the world. Although there are dozens of different reactor designs and sizes, there are three broad categories either currently deployed or under development. These are:

Generation II: Mainstream reactor designs in commercial operation worldwide. Generation III: New generation reactors now being built.

Of the new reactor types, the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) has been developed from the most recent Generation II designs to start operation in France and Germany.61 Its stated goals are to improve safety levels - in particular to reduce the probability of a severe accident by a factor of ten, achieve mitigation from severe accidents by restricting their consequences to the plant itself, and reduce costs. Compared to its predecessors, however, the EPR displays several modifications which constitute a reduction of safety margins, including: • The volume of the reactor building has been reduced by simplifying the layout of the emergency core cooling system, and by using the results of new calculations which predict less hydrogen development during an accident. • The thermal output of the plant has been increased by 15% relative to existing French reactors by increasing core outlet temperature, letting the main coolant pumps run at higher capacity and modifying the steam generators.

• The EPR has fewer redundant pathways in its safety systems than a German Generation II reactor. Several other modifications are hailed as substantial safety improvements, including a ‘core catcher’ system to control a meltdown accident. Nonetheless, in spite of the changes being envisaged, there is no guarantee that the safety level of the EPR actually represents a significant improvement. In particular, reduction of the expected core melt probability by a factor of ten is not proven. Furthermore, there are serious doubts as to whether the mitigation and control of a core melt accident with the core catcher concept will actually work. Finally, Generation IV reactors are currently being developed with the aim of commercialisation in 20-30 years.

• A standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and construction time. • A simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets. • Higher availability and longer operating life, typically 60 years. • Reduced possibility of core melt accidents. • Minimal effect on the environment. • Higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste. • Burnable absorbers (‘poisons’) to extend fuel life.

60 IAEA 2004; WNO 2004A. 61 HAINZ 2004.

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES

Generation III reactors include the so-called Advanced Reactors, three of which are already in operation in Japan, with more under construction or planned. About 20 different designs are reported to be under development,60 most of them ‘evolutionary’ designs developed from Generation II reactor types with some modifications, but without introducing drastic changes. Some of them represent more innovative approaches. According to the World Nuclear Association, reactors of Generation III are characterised by the following:

To what extent these goals address issues of higher safety standards, as opposed to improved economics, remains unclear.

energy technologies |

Generation I: Prototype commercial reactors developed in the 1950s and 1960s as modified or enlarged military reactors, originally either for submarine propulsion or plutonium production.

image THROUGH BURNING OF WOOD CHIPS THE POWER PLANT GENERATES ELECTRICITY, ENERGY OR HEAT. HERE WE SEE THE STOCK OF WOOD CHIPS WITH A CAPACITY OF 1000 M3 ON WHICH THE PLANT CAN RUN, UNMANNED, FOR ABOUT 4 DAYS. LELYSTAD, THE NETHERLANDS.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

10.3 renewable energy technologies Renewable energy covers a range of natural sources which are constantly renewed and therefore, unlike fossil fuels and uranium, will never be exhausted. Most of them derive from the effect of the sun and moon on the earth’s weather patterns. They also produce none of the harmful emissions and pollution associated with ‘conventional’ fuels. Although hydroelectric power has been used on an industrial scale since the middle of the last century, the serious exploitation of other renewable sources has a more recent history. 10.3.1 solar power (photovoltaics)

There is more than enough solar radiation available all over the world to satisfy a vastly increased demand for solar power systems. The sunlight which reaches the earth’s surface is enough to provide 2,850 times as much energy as we can currently use. On a global average, each square metre of land is exposed to enough sunlight to produce 1,700 kWh of power every year. The average irradiation in Europe is about 1,000 kWh per square metre, however, compared with 1,800 kWh in the Middle East.

energy technologies | RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Photovoltaic (PV) technology involves the generation of electricity from light. The essence of this process is the use of a semiconductor material which can be adapted to release electrons, the negatively charged particles that form the basis of electricity. The most common semiconductor material used in photovoltaic cells is silicon, an element most commonly found in sand. All PV cells have at least two layers of such semiconductors, one positively charged and one negatively charged. When light shines on the semiconductor, the electric field across the junction between these two layers causes electricity to flow. The greater the intensity of the light, the greater the flow of electricity. A photovoltaic system does not therefore need bright sunlight in order to operate, and can generate electricity even on cloudy days. Solar PV is different from a solar thermal collecting system (see below) where the sun’s rays are used to generate heat, usually for hot water in a house, swimming pool etc. The most important parts of a PV system are the cells which form the basic building blocks, the modules which bring together large numbers of cells into a unit, and, in some situations, the inverters used to convert the electricity generated into a form suitable for everyday use. When a PV installation is described as having a capacity of 3 kWp (peak), this refers to the output of the system under standard testing conditions, allowing comparison between different modules. In central Europe a 3 kWp rated solar electricity system, with a surface area of approximately 27 square metres, would produce enough power to meet the electricity demand of an energy conscious household.

• thin film technology Thin film modules are constructed by depositing extremely thin layers of photosensitive materials onto a substrate such as glass, stainless steel or flexible plastic. The latter opens up a range of applications, especially for building integration (roof tiles) and end-consumer purposes. Four types of thin film modules are commercially available at the moment: Amorphous Silicon, Cadmium Telluride, Copper Indium/Gallium Diselenide/Disulphide and multi-junction cells. • other emerging cell technologies (at the development or early commercial stage): These include Concentrated Photovoltaic, consisting of cells built into concentrating collectors that use a lens to focus the concentrated sunlight onto the cells, and Organic Solar Cells, whereby the active material consists at least partially of organic dye, small, volatile organic molecules or polymer. systems • grid connected The most popular type of solar PV system for homes and businesses in the developed world. Connection to the local electricity network allows any excess power produced to be sold to the utility. Electricity is then imported from the network outside daylight hours. An inverter is used to convert the DC power produced by the system to AC power for running normal electrical equipment. • grid support A system can be connected to the local electricity network as well as a back-up battery. Any excess solar electricity produced after the battery has been charged is then sold to the network. This system is ideal for use in areas of unreliable power supply. • off-grid Completely independent of the grid, the system is connected to a battery via a charge controller, which stores the electricity generated and acts as the main power supply. An inverter can be used to provide AC power, enabling the use of normal appliances. Typical off-grid applications are repeater stations for mobile phones or rural electrification. Rural electrification means either small solar home systems covering basic electricity needs or solar mini grids, which are larger solar electricity systems providing electricity for several households. • hybrid system A solar system can be combined with another source of power - a biomass generator, a wind turbine or diesel generator - to ensure a consistent supply of electricity. A hybrid system can be grid connected, stand alone or grid support. figure 10.1: photovoltaics technology

1. LIGHT (PHOTONS) 2. FRONT CONTACT GRID 3. ANTI-REFLECTION COATING 1

5. BOARDER LAYOUT

There are several different PV technologies and types of installed system.

6. P-TYPE SEMICONDUCTOR

technologies • crystalline silicon technology Crystalline silicon cells are made from thin slices cut from a single crystal of silicon (mono crystalline) or from a block of silicon crystals (polycrystalline or multi crystalline). This is the most common technology, representing about 80% of the market today. In addition, this technology also exists in the form of ribbon sheets.

7. BACKCONTACT 2 3 4 5 6 7

100

4. N-TYPE SEMICONDUCTOR

10.3.2 concentrating solar power (CSP) Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, also called solar thermal power plants, produce electricity in much the same way as conventional power stations. They obtain their energy input by concentrating solar radiation and converting it to high temperature steam or gas to drive a turbine or motor engine. Large mirrors concentrate sunlight into a single line or point. The heat created there is used to generate steam. This hot, highly pressurised steam is used to power turbines which generate electricity. In sundrenched regions, CSP plants can guarantee a large proportion of electricity production.

• central receiver or solar tower A circular array of heliostats (large individually tracking mirrors) is used to concentrate sunlight on to a central receiver mounted at the top of a tower. A heat-transfer medium absorbs the highly concentrated radiation reflected by the heliostats and converts it into thermal energy to be used for the subsequent generation of superheated steam for turbine operation. To date, the heat transfer media demonstrated include water/steam, molten salts, liquid sodium and air. If pressurised gas or air is used at very high temperatures of about 1,000°C or more as the heat transfer medium, it can even be used to directly replace natural gas in a gas turbine, thus making use of the excellent efficiency (60%+) of modern gas and steam combined cycles.

Four main elements are required: a concentrator, a receiver, some form of transfer medium or storage, and power conversion. Many different types of system are possible, including combinations with other renewable and non-renewable technologies, but there are four main groups of solar thermal technologies:

After an intermediate scaling up to 30 MW capacity, solar tower developers now feel confident that grid-connected tower power plants can be built up to a capacity of 200 MWe solar-only units. Use of heat storage will increase their flexibility. Although solar tower plants are considered to be further from commercialisation than parabolic trough systems, they have good longer-term prospects for high conversion efficiencies. Projects are being developed in Spain, South Africa and Australia.

• linear fresnel systems Collectors resemble parabolic troughs, with a similar power generation technology, using a field of horizontally mounted flat mirror strips, collectively or individually tracking the sun. There is one plant currently in operation in Europe: Puerto Errado (2 MW).

figures 10.2: csp technologies: parabolic trough, central receiver/solar tower and parabolic dish PARABOLIC TROUGH

CENTRAL RECEIVER

PARABOLIC DISH

CENTRAL RECEIVER

REFLECTOR RECEIVER/ENGINE

REFLECTOR HELIOSTATS ABSORBER TUBE

SOLAR FIELD PIPING

101

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

• parabolic dish A dish-shaped reflector is used to concentrate sunlight on to a receiver located at its focal point. The concentrated beam radiation is absorbed into the receiver to heat a fluid or gas to approximately 750°C. This is then used to generate electricity in a small piston, Stirling engine or micro turbine attached to the receiver. The potential of parabolic dishes lies primarily for decentralised power supply and remote, standalone power systems. Projects are currently planned in the United States, Australia and Europe.

10 energy technologies |

• parabolic trough Parabolic trough plants use rows of parabolic trough collectors, each of which reflect the solar radiation into an absorber tube. Synthetic oil circulates through the tubes, heating up to approximately 400°C. This heat is then used to generate electricity. Some of the plants under construction have been designed to produce power not only during sunny hours but also to store energy, allowing the plant to produce an additional 7.5 hours of nominal power after sunset, which dramatically improves their integration into the grid. Molten salts are normally used as storage fluid in a hot-and-cold two-tank concept. Plants in operation in Europe: Andasol 1 and 2 (50 MW +7.5 hour storage each); Puertollano (50 MW); Alvarado (50 MW) and Extresol 1 (50 MW + 7.5 hour storage).

image SOLAR PROJECT IN PHITSANULOK, THAILAND. SOLAR FACILITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE AND SCHOOL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

10.3.3 solar thermal collectors

10.3.4 wind power

Solar thermal collecting systems are based on a centuries-old principle: the sun heats up water contained in a dark vessel. Solar thermal technologies on the market now are efficient and highly reliable, providing energy for a wide range of applications - from domestic hot water and space heating in residential and commercial buildings to swimming pool heating, solar-assisted cooling, industrial process heat and the desalination of drinking water.

Over the last 20 years, wind energy has become the world’s fastest growing energy source. Today’s wind turbines are produced by a sophisticated mass production industry employing a technology that is efficient, cost effective and quick to install. Turbine sizes range from a few kW to over 5,000 kW, with the largest turbines reaching more than 100m in height. One large wind turbine can produce enough electricity for about 5,000 households. State-ofthe-art wind farms today can be as small as a few turbines and as large as several hundred MW.

Although mature products exist to provide domestic hot water and space heating using solar energy, in most countries they are not yet the norm. Integrating solar thermal technologies into buildings at the design stage or when the heating (and cooling) system is being replaced is crucial, thus lowering the installation cost. Moreover, the untapped potential in the non-residential sector will be opened up as newly developed technology becomes commercially viable.

10 energy technologies |

solar domestic hot water and space heating Domestic hot water production is the most common application. Depending on the conditions and the system’s configuration, most of a building’s hot water requirements can be provided by solar energy. Larger systems can additionally cover a substantial part of the energy needed for space heating. There are two main types of technology:

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

• vacuum tubes The absorber inside the vacuum tube absorbs radiation from the sun and heats up the fluid inside. Additional radiation is picked up from the reflector behind the tubes. Whatever the angle of the sun, the round shape of the vacuum tube allows it to reach the absorber. Even on a cloudy day, when the light is coming from many angles at once, the vacuum tube collector can still be effective. • flat panel This is basically a box with a glass cover which sits on the roof like a skylight. Inside is a series of copper tubes with copper fins attached. The entire structure is coated in a black substance designed to capture the sun’s rays. These rays heat up a water and antifreeze mixture which circulates from the collector down to the building’s boiler. solar assisted cooling Solar chillers use thermal energy to produce cooling and/or dehumidify the air in a similar way to a refrigerator or conventional air-conditioning. This application is well-suited to solar thermal energy, as the demand for cooling is often greatest when there is most sunshine. Solar cooling has been successfully demonstrated and large-scale use can be expected in the future. figure 10.3: flat panel solar technology

102

The global wind resource is enormous, capable of generating more electricity than the world’s total power demand, and well distributed across the five continents. Wind turbines can be operated not just in the windiest coastal areas but in countries which have no coastlines, including regions such as central Eastern Europe, central North and South America, and central Asia. The wind resource out at sea is even more productive than on land, encouraging the installation of offshore wind parks with foundations embedded in the ocean floor. In Denmark, a wind park built in 2002 uses 80 turbines to produce enough electricity for a city with a population of 150,000. Smaller wind turbines can produce power efficiently in areas that otherwise have no access to electricity. This power can be used directly or stored in batteries. New technologies for using the wind’s power are also being developed for exposed buildings in densely populated cities. wind turbine design Significant consolidation of wind turbine design has taken place since the 1980s. The majority of commercial turbines now operate on a horizontal axis with three evenly spaced blades. These are attached to a rotor from which power is transferred through a gearbox to a generator. The gearbox and generator are contained within a housing called a nacelle. Some turbine designs avoid a gearbox by using direct drive. The electricity output is then channelled down the tower to a transformer and eventually into the local grid network. Wind turbines can operate from a wind speed of 3-4 metres per second up to about 25 m/s. Limiting their power at high wind speeds is achieved either by ‘stall’ regulation – reducing the power output – or ‘pitch’ control – changing the angle of the blades so that they no longer offer any resistance to the wind. Pitch control has become the most common method. The blades can also turn at a constant or variable speed, with the latter enabling the turbine to follow more closely the changing wind speed.

image SOLAR PANELS ON CONISTON STATION, NORTH WEST OF ALICE SPRINGS, NORTHERN TERRITORY.

The main design drivers for current wind technology are:

10.3.5 biomass energy

• high productivity at both low and high wind sites

Biomass is a broad term used to describe material of recent biological origin that can be used as a source of energy. This includes wood, crops, algae and other plants as well as agricultural and forest residues. Biomass can be used for a variety of end uses: heating, electricity generation or as fuel for transportation. The term ‘bio energy’ is used for biomass energy systems that produce heat and/or electricity and ‘bio fuels’ for liquid fuels used in transport. Biodiesel manufactured from various crops has become increasingly used as vehicle fuel, especially as the cost of oil has risen.

• grid compatibility • acoustic performance • aerodynamic performance • visual impact • offshore expansion Although the existing offshore market represents only just over 1% of the world’s land-based installed wind capacity, the latest developments in wind technology are primarily driven by this emerging potential. This means that the focus is on the most effective ways to make very large turbines.

figure 10.4: wind turbine technology

biomass technology A number of processes can be used to convert energy from biomass. These divide into thermal systems, which involve direct combustion of solids, liquids or a gas via pyrolysis or gasification, and biological systems, which involve decomposition of solid biomass to liquid or gaseous fuels by processes such as anaerobic digestion and fermentation.

figure 10.5: biomass technology

1 3

2 6 7

8 1. HEATED MIXER 2. CONTAINMENT FOR FERMENTATION 3. BIOGAS STORAGE 1. ROTOR BLADE

4. COMBUSTION ENGINE

2. BLADE ADJUSTMENT

5. GENERATOR

3. NACELL

6. WASTE CONTAINMENT

4. ROTOR SHAFT 5. WIND MEASUREMENT 6. GENERATOR 7. SYSTEM CONTROL 8. LIFT

103

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

This growth in turbine size has been matched by the expansion of both markets and manufacturers. More than 150,000 wind turbines now operate in over 50 countries around the world. The US market is currently the largest, but there has also been impressive growth in Germany, Spain, Denmark, India and China.

Electricity generating biomass power plants work just like natural gas or coal power stations, except that the fuel must be processed before it can be burned. These power plants are generally not as large as coal power stations because their fuel supply needs to grow as near as possible to the plant. Heat generation from biomass power plants can result either from utilising a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system, piping the heat to nearby homes or industry, or through dedicated heating systems. Small heating systems using specially produced pellets made from waste wood, for example, can be used to heat single family homes instead of natural gas or oil.

energy technologies |

Modern wind technology is available for a range of sites - low and high wind speeds, desert and arctic climates. European wind farms operate with high availability, are generally well integrated into the environment and accepted by the public. In spite of repeated predictions of a levelling off at an optimum mid-range size, and the fact that wind turbines cannot get larger indefinitely, turbine size has increased year on year - from units of 20-60 kW in California in the 1980s up to the latest multi-MW machines with rotor diameters over 100 m. The average size of turbine installed around the world during 2009 was 1,599 kW, whilst the largest machine in operation is the Enercon E126, with a rotor diameter of 126 metres and a power capacity of 6 MW.

Biological power sources are renewable, easily stored, and, if sustainably harvested, CO2 neutral. This is because the gas emitted during their transfer into useful energy is balanced by the carbon dioxide absorbed when they were growing plants.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

• thermal systems Direct combustion is the most common way of converting biomass into energy, for heat as well as electricity. Worldwide it accounts for over 90% of biomass generation. Technologies can be distinguished as either fixed bed, fluidised bed or entrained flow combustion. In fixed bed combustion, such as a grate furnace, primary air passes through a fixed bed, in which drying, gasification and charcoal combustion takes place. The combustible gases produced are burned after the addition of secondary air, usually in a zone separated from the fuel bed. In fluidised bed combustion, the primary combustion air is injected from the bottom of the furnace with such high velocity that the material inside the furnace becomes a seething mass of particles and bubbles. Entrained flow combustion is suitable for fuels available as small particles, such as sawdust or fine shavings, which are pneumatically injected into the furnace.

10 energy technologies |

Gasification Biomass fuels are increasingly being used with advanced conversion technologies, such as gasification systems, which offer superior efficiencies compared with conventional power generation. Gasification is a thermochemical process in which biomass is heated with little or no oxygen present to produce a low energy gas. The gas can then be used to fuel a gas turbine or combustion engine to generate electricity. Gasification can also decrease emission levels compared to power production with direct combustion and a steam cycle.

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Pyrolysis is a process whereby biomass is exposed to high temperatures in the absence of air, causing the biomass to decompose. The products of pyrolysis always include gas (‘biogas’), liquid (‘bio-oil’) and solid (‘char’), with the relative proportions of each depending on the fuel characteristics, the method of pyrolysis and the reaction parameters, such as temperature and pressure. Lower temperatures produce more solid and liquid products and higher temperatures more biogas. • biological systems These processes are suitable for very wet biomass materials such as food or agricultural wastes, including farm animal slurry. Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion means the breakdown of organic waste by bacteria in an oxygen-free environment. This produces a biogas typically made up of 65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide. Purified biogas can then be used both for heating and electricity generation. Fermentation Fermentation is the process by which growing plants with a high sugar and starch content are broken down with the help of micro-organisms to produce ethanol and methanol. The end product is a combustible fuel that can be used in vehicles. Biomass power station capacities typically range up to 15 MW, but larger plants are possible of up to 400 MW capacity, with part of the fuel input potentially being fossil fuel, for example pulverised coal. The world’s largest biomass fuelled power plant is located at Pietarsaari in Finland. Built in 2001, this is an industrial CHP plant producing steam (100 MWth) and electricity (240 MWe) for the local forest industry and district heat for the nearby town. The boiler is a circulating fluidised bed boiler designed to generate steam from bark, sawdust, wood residues, commercial bio fuel and peat.

A 2005 study commissioned by Greenpeace Netherlands concluded that it was technically possible to build and operate a 1,000 MWe biomass fired power plant using fluidised bed combustion technology and fed with wood residue pellets.62 10.3.6 biofuels Converting crops into ethanol and bio diesel made from rapeseed methyl ester (RME) currently takes place mainly in Brazil, the USA and Europe. Processes for obtaining synthetic fuels from ‘biogenic synthesis’ gases will also play a larger role in the future. Theoretically biofuels can be produced from any biological carbon source, although the most common are photosynthetic plants. Various plants and plantderived materials are used for biofuel production. Globally biofuels are most commonly used to power vehicles, but can also be used for other purposes. The production and use of biofuels must result in a net reduction in carbon emissions compared to the use of traditional fossil fuels to have a positive effect in climate change mitigation. Sustainable biofuels can reduce the dependency on petroleum and thereby enhance energy security. • bioethanol is a fuel manufactured through the fermentation of sugars. This is done by accessing sugars directly (sugar cane or beet) or by breaking down starch in grains such as wheat, rye, barley or maize. In the European Union bio ethanol is mainly produced from grains, with wheat as the dominant feedstock. In Brazil the preferred feedstock is sugar cane, whereas in the USA it is corn (maize). Bio ethanol produced from cereals has a byproduct, a protein-rich animal feed called Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS). For every tonne of cereals used for ethanol production, on average one third will enter the animal feed stream as DDGS. Because of its high protein level this is currently used as a replacement for soy cake. Bio ethanol can either be blended into gasoline (petrol) directly or be used in the form of ETBE (Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether). • biodiesel is a fuel produced from vegetable oil sourced from rapeseed, sunflower seeds or soybeans as well as used cooking oils or animal fats. If used vegetable oils are recycled as feedstock for bio diesel production this can reduce pollution from discarded oil and provides a new way of transforming a waste product into transport energy. Blends of bio diesel and conventional hydrocarbon-based diesel are the most common products distributed in the retail transport fuel market. Most countries use a labelling system to explain the proportion of bio diesel in any fuel mix. Fuel containing 20% biodiesel is labelled B20, while pure bio diesel is referred to as B100. Blends of 20% bio diesel with 80% petroleum diesel (B20) can generally be used in unmodified diesel engines. Used in its pure form (B100) an engine may require certain modifications. Bio diesel can also be used as a heating fuel in domestic and commercial boilers. Older furnaces may contain rubber parts that would be affected by bio diesel’s solvent properties, but can otherwise burn it without any conversion.

62 ‘OPPORTUNITIES FOR 1,000 MWE BIOMASS-FIRED POWER PLANT IN THE NETHERLANDS’, GREENPEACE NETHERLANDS, 2005

104

image SOLAR PANELS FEATURED IN A RENEWABLE ENERGY EXHIBIT ON BORACAY ISLAND, ONE OF THE PHILIPPINES’ PREMIER TOURIST DESTINATIONS. image VESTAS VM 80 WIND TURBINES AT AN OFFSHORE WIND PARK IN THE WESTERN PART OF DENMARK.

10.3.7 geothermal energy

10.3.8 hydro power

Geothermal energy is heat derived from deep underneath the earth’s crust. In most areas, this heat reaches the surface in a very diffuse state. However, due to a variety of geological processes, some areas, including the western part of the USA, west and central Eastern Europe, Iceland, Asia and New Zealand are underlain by relatively shallow geothermal resources. These are classified as either low temperature (less than 90°C), moderate temperature (90° - 150°C) or high temperature (greater than 150°C). The uses to which these resources can be put depend on the temperature. The highest temperature is generally used only for electric power generation. Current global geothermal generation capacity totals approximately 10,700 MW, and the leading country is currently the USA, with over 3,000 MW, followed by the Philippines (1,900 MW) and Indonesia (1,200 MW). Low and moderate temperature resources can be used either directly or through ground-source heat pumps.

Water has been used to produce electricity for about a century. Today, around one fifth of the world’s electricity is produced from hydro power. Large hydroelectric power plants with concrete dams and extensive collecting lakes often have very negative effects on the environment, however, requiring the flooding of habitable areas. Smaller ‘run-of-the-river’ power stations, which are turbines powered by one section of running water in a river, can produce electricity in an environmentally friendly way.

figure 10.7: hydro technology

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

figure 10.6: geothermal technology

3 3 2

2 1

5 4

1. PUMP

1. INLET

2. HEAT EXCHANGER

2. SIEVE

3. GAS TURBINE & GENERATOR

3. GENERATOR

4. DRILLING HOLE FOR COLD WATER INJECTION

4. TURBINE

5. DRILLING HOLE FOR WARM WATER EXTRACTION

5. HEAD

10 energy technologies |

Geothermal power plants use the earth’s natural heat to vaporise water or an organic medium. The steam created then powers a turbine which produces electricity. In the USA, New Zealand and Iceland this technique has been used extensively for decades. In Germany, where it is necessary to drill many kilometres down to reach the necessary temperatures, it is only in the trial stages. Geothermal heat plants require lower temperatures and the heated water is used directly.

The main requirement for hydro power is to create an artificial head so that water, diverted through an intake channel or pipe into a turbine, discharges back into the river downstream. Small hydro power is mainly ‘run-of-the-river’ and does not collect significant amounts of stored water, requiring the construction of large dams and reservoirs. There are two broad categories of turbines. In an impulse turbine (notably the Pelton), a jet of water impinges on the runner designed to reverse the direction of the jet and thereby extracts momentum from the water. This turbine is suitable for high heads and ‘small’ discharges. Reaction turbines (notably Francis and Kaplan) run full of water and in effect generate hydrodynamic ‘lift’ forces to propel the runner blades. These turbines are suitable for medium to low heads and medium to large discharges.

6. OUTLET

105

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

Wave energy systems can be divided into three groups, described below.

tidal power Tidal power can be harnessed by constructing a dam or barrage across an estuary or bay with a tidal range of at least five metres. Gates in the barrage allow the incoming tide to build up in a basin behind it. The gates then close so that when the tide flows out the water can be channelled through turbines to generate electricity. Tidal barrages have been built across estuaries in France, Canada and China but a mixture of high cost projections coupled with environmental objections to the effect on estuarial habitats has limited the technology’s further expansion.

• shoreline devices are fixed to the coast or embedded in the shoreline, with the advantage of easier installation and maintenance. They also do not require deep-water moorings or long lengths of underwater electrical cable. The disadvantage is that they experience a much less powerful wave regime. The most advanced type of shoreline device is the oscillating water column (OWC). One example is the Pico plant, a 400 kW rated shoreline OWC equipped with a Wells turbine constructed in the 1990s. Another system that can be integrated into a breakwater is the Seawave Slot-Cone converter.

wave and tidal stream power In wave power generation, a structure interacts with the incoming waves, converting this energy to electricity through a hydraulic, mechanical or pneumatic power take-off system. The structure is kept in position by a mooring system or placed directly on the seabed/seashore. Power is transmitted to the seabed by a flexible submerged electrical cable and to shore by a sub-sea cable.

• near shore devices are deployed at moderate water depths (~2025 m) at distances up to ~500 m from the shore. They have the same advantages as shoreline devices but are exposed to stronger, more productive waves. These include ‘point absorber systems’.

There is no commercially leading technology on wave power conversion at present. Different systems are being developed at sea for prototype testing. The largest grid-connected system installed so far is the 2.25 MW Pelamis, with linked semi-submerged cyclindrical sections, operating off the coast of Portugal. Most development work has been carried out in the UK.

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Wave power converters can be made up from connected groups of smaller generator units of 100 – 500 kW, or several mechanical or hydraulically interconnected modules can supply a single larger turbine generator unit of 2 – 20 MW. The large waves needed to make the technology more cost effective are mostly found at great distances from the shore, however, requiring costly sub-sea cables to transmit the power. The converters themselves also take up large amounts of space. Wave power has the advantage of providing a more predictable supply than wind energy and can be located in the ocean without much visual intrusion.

energy technologies |

In tidal stream generation, a machine similar to a wind turbine rotor is fitted underwater to a column fixed to the sea bed; the rotor then rotates to generate electricity from fast-moving currents. 300 kW prototypes are in operation in the UK.

• offshore devices exploit the more powerful wave regimes available in deep water (>25 m depth). More recent designs for offshore devices concentrate on small, modular devices, yielding high power output when deployed in arrays. One example is the AquaBuOY system, a freely floating heaving point absorber system that reacts against a submersed tube, filled with water. Another example is the Wave Dragon, which uses a wave reflector design to focus the wave towards a ramp and fill a higher-level reservoir.

10.3.9 ocean energy

images 1. BIOMASS CROPS. 2. OCEAN ENERGY. 3. CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER (CSP).

106

policy recommendations in the EU context EU

STANDBY POWER IS WASTED POWER. GLOBALLY, WE HAVE 50 DIRTY POWER PLANTS RUNNING JUST FOR OUR WASTED STANDBY POWER. OR: IF WE WOULD REDUCE OUR STANDBY TO JUST 1 WATT, WE CAN AVOID THE BUILDING OF 50 NEW DIRTY POWER PLANTS. © M. DIETRICH/DREAMSTIME

“By clinging on to dirty energy, Hungary seems more and more weird in an increasingly renewable-based Europe.” MÁRTON VAY GREENPEACE HUNGARY

107

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

The Energy [R]evolution presents European decision-makers with a cost-effective and sustainable pathway for our economy, while tackling the challenges of climate change and the security of energy supply. A fully renewable and efficient energy system would allow Europe to develop a sound energy economy, create high quality jobs, boost technology development, secure global competitiveness and trigger industrial leadership. At the same time, the drive towards renewables and the smart use of energy would deliver the necessary carbon dioxide emissions cuts of 95% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, which Europe will have to realise in the fight against climate change. But the Energy [R]evolution will not happen without much needed political leadership: The European Union and its Member States will have to set the framework for a sustainable energy pathway. At present, a wide range of energy-market failures still discourage the shift towards a clean energy system. It is high time to remove these barriers to increase energy savings and facilitate the replacement of fossil fuels with clean and abundant renewable energy sources. European decision-makers should demonstrate commitment to a clean energy future, create the regulatory conditions for an efficient and renewable energy system, and stimulate governments, businesses, industries and citizens to opt for renewable energy and its smart use. Greenpeace proposes five steps that the European Union and its Member States should take to realise the Energy [R]evolution.

108

1. Develop a vision for a truly sustainable energy economy for 2050 to guide European climate and energy policy Demonstrate how the EU will play its role in slashing global emissions until 2050 EU leaders committed in 2005 to the objective of keeping global mean temperature increase below two-degrees Celsius (2°C) compared to pre-industrial levels. Above this level, damage to ecosystems and disruption of the climate system would increase dramatically. In October 2009 the EU leaders also committed to reduce emissions in the EU by 80-95% in 2050 compared to 1990. The EU should strengthen its envisaged emissions reduction pathway to achieve a 95% cut within Europe, so as to make sure that the EU does its part to keep global warming below the 2°C threshold. Move the energy system towards 100% renewable energy and high efficiency in all sectors Europe’s energy system is outdated and substantial investments in power production capacity and infrastructure, as well as buildings and transportation, will have to take place within the next decade. These investment decisions will shape the structure of the energy system until 2050 and beyond. A highly energy-efficient economy is a precondition for Europe’s competitiveness and well-being. To power our electricity, transportation and remaining heating requirements, renewable energy sources are the truly sustainable, cost-effective and available solution. Too much energy is still wasted in inefficient vehicles and buildings. Investments in coal production and nuclear power hinder the transition towards a clean energy economy. They divert financial resources and create economic and technical lock-in effects in conflict with the uptake of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Europe should therefore take a strategic approach and commit to a truly sustainable vision for a fully renewable and energy efficient electricity and heat production, as well as clean transportation until 2050.

2. Adopt and implement ambitious and legally binding targets for emissions reductions, energy savings and renewable energy Commit to legally binding emissions reductions of 30% as the next step, and lead by example The EU has only included a 20% emission reduction target for 2020 in EU legislation, and has put a conditional offer for 30% emission reductions on the table at the international climate negotiations. Greenpeace urges EU leaders to show leadership and to commit as soon as possible to a domestic 30% unconditional emission reduction target for the EU. This as a first step towards at least 40% emission cuts by 2020 for all industrialised countries under a global climate agreement. Furthermore, a 30% reduction target is required to strengthen the EU’s carbon price in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Due to the economic recession of 2008 and 2009 the EU ETS carbon price has collapsed, taking away an important driver for green and resource-efficient technology investments. The upcoming Energy Efficiency Directive is expected to lead to further emissions reductions, making a 30% target entirely feasible.

Ensure the realisation of Europe’s energy savings target of 20% by 2020

Ensure the early implementation of the 20% renewable energy target by 2020 and set a further target for 2030 With the adoption of the Renewable Energy Directive, European Member States have committed to legally binding targets, adding up to a share of at least 20% renewable energy in the EU by 2020. The Energy [R]evolution scenarios demonstrate that even more is possible. To reap the full benefits that renewable energy offers for the economy, energy security, technological leadership and emissions reductions, governments should aim for an early achievement of their renewable energy targets. At the same time, Europe should already define a 2030 target of at least 40% for the share of renewable energy to trigger innovation, provide investor confidence and set a benchmark for network development planning.

Reform the electricity market and network management After decades of state-subsidies to conventional energy sources, the entire electricity market structure and network system, have been developed so as to suit centralised nuclear and fossil production structures. Current ownership structures, price mechanisms, transmission and congestion management practices and technical requirements hinder the optimal integration of variable and decentralised renewable energy technologies. As an important step to facilitate the reform of the electricity market, all European governments should secure full ownership unbundling of transmission system operations from power production and supply activities. This is the effective way to provide fair market access and overcome existing discriminatory practices against new market entrants, such as renewable energy producers. A modernisation of the power grid system is urgently required to allow for the cost-effective connection and integration of renewable power sources. The European Union and its governments should create the necessary framework conditions and incentives for the development of grid connections for renewable energy supply, including offshore, targeted interconnection that allows for the transmission and balancing of variable supplies across regions, as well as smart grid management and technology that allows for the integration of variable and decentralised supplies and active demand side management. To facilitate this modernisation, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) should be strengthened and the mandate of national energy regulators should be reviewed. Both ACER and the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) should develop a strategic interconnection plan until 2050 which enables the development of a fully renewable electricity supply. In parallel, electricity market regulation should ensure that investments in balancing capacity and flexible power production facilitate the integration of renewable power sources, while phasing out inflexible ‘baseload’ power supply. Phase out all subsidies and other support measures for inefficient plants, appliances, vehicles and buildings, as well as for fossil fuel use and nuclear power While the EU is striving for a liberalised market for electricity production, government support is still propping up conventional energy technologies, hindering the uptake of renewable energy sources and energy savings. For example, the nuclear power sector in Europe still benefits from direct subsidies, government loan guarantees, export credit guarantees, government equity input and subsidised in-kind support. In addition, the sector continues to profit from guaranteed cheap loans under the Euratom Loan Facility and related loans by the European Investment Bank. Apart from these financial advantages, the nuclear sector profits from cost-limitations for decommissioning of power stations and radioactive waste management (e.g. in Slovakia and the UK), government bail-outs of insufficient reserves for decommissioning and waste management (in the UK), and government financing of R&D and education infrastructure (on a national level and under 109

CLIMATE POLICY

The EU has set itself a target to reduce energy use by 20% by 2020, compared to business-as-usual. This target will not be met without additional measures. In the context of the upcoming Energy Efficiency Directive, the EU should foresee a conversion of the nonbinding 2020 EU energy savings goal into a legally binding requirement for all EU member states as soon as possible, but no later than in 2013.

3. Remove barriers to a renewable and efficient energy system

climate & energy policy |

Internationally, the European Union will have to provide substantial additional finance to help developing countries mitigate climate change with clean energy technologies and forest protection.

image A WORKER ASSEMBLES WIND TURBINE ROTORS AT GANSU JINFENG WIND POWER EQUIPMENT CO. LTD. IN JIUQUAN, GANSU PROVINCE, CHINA.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

Euratom). Liability coverage for installations in the nuclear energy sector is so low that damage of any major accident will have to be covered almost completely by state funds. The total level of these financial advantages is estimated to be several times the financial support given to the renewable energy sector. Also fossil fuels continue to receive large financial benefits that contradict the development of a clean power market. New EU funds for fossil fuel technologies have been made available in recent years to promote carbon capture and storage technology. Spending money on carbon capture and storage for coal power stations is diverting funds away from renewable energy and energy savings. Even if some carbon capture and storage becomes technically feasible and capable of long-term storage, it would still only have a limited impact on emission reductions and would come at a high cost.

In the transport sector, the most energy intensive modes, road and aviation, receive about EUR 150 billion in subsidies and tax exemptions. About 7% of the EU’s Structural and Cohesion Funds are spent on road and aviation infrastructure. Also the EIB has long favoured these modes of transportation, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, cementing Europe’s high carbon transport system.

climate & energy policy |

Close existing loopholes for nuclear waste

ENERGY POLICY AND MARKET REGULATION

The European Union and the Member States should bring the management of nuclear waste in line with general EU waste policies in order to make the polluter pays principle fully effective. This means that loopholes under which certain forms of radioactive waste are excluded from waste rules have to be closed. This includes depleted uranium, reprocessing waste, plutonium and reprocessed uranium stockpiles, uranium mining waste as well as fluid and air-borne wastes from uranium enrichment, fuel production and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. It also includes clear policies for phasing out the production of radioactive waste from processes for which there are economic and environmentally viable alternatives, which is certainly the case for nuclear electricity production. Over 90% of radioactive waste is produced by the nuclear power sector – a nuclear phase out policy as proposed in the Energy [R]evolution scenario is therefore the logical step in a coherent and consequent EU waste policy.

4. Implement effective policies to promote a clean energy economy Update the EU Emission Trading Scheme The EU should update its Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) so as to move away rapidly from the remaining free allocation of emission allowances. To provide the right market signals and the economic incentives for the transition of our energy system along the whole production and consumption chain, all allowances under the Emissions Trading System should be auctioned rather than being given out for free. Auctioning reduces the total cost of European climate action because it is the most economically efficient allocation methodology, eliminating windfall profits from free allowances. Furthermore the EU ETS should be a driver for domestic emission reductions. The required domestic reductions must not be replaced by investments in questionable projects in third countries (‘offsetting’). Strict quantitative limits and strict quality criteria on offsetting should guarantee real emission cuts and investments in green technology and jobs. Implement stable support for renewable energy and secure the successful enforcement of the Renewable Energy Directive With the adoption of the Renewable Energy Directive, EU Member States have committed to a framework for the support of clean energy. In order to secure the realisation of the 20% renewable energy targets and prepare for strong 2030 targets, governments should implement effective support policies to compensate for the existing market failures and to help maturing renewable energy technologies to realise their full economic potential. In the electricity sector, feed-in tariffs or premium systems, if designed well, have proven to be the most successful and cost effective instruments to promote the broad uptake of renewable power technologies. Under a feed-in system, a certain price is guaranteed for the electricity produced from different renewable sources. A premium model provides for a certain premium paid on top of the market price. For the heating sector, the Renewable Energy Directive foresees a building obligation, which establishes that a certain share of heating and cooling in new and refurbished buildings have to come from renewable energy sources. In addition, investments subsidies and tax credits are among the instruments available to support renewable heating and cooling. The support of renewable energy in the transport sector should focus primarily on the use of renewable electricity in electric vehicles and trains, while support the development of further sustainable renewable energy options for all modes of transportation. The availability of sustainable bio fuels is limited. The European Union and individual governments should ensure the effective implementation and improvement of sustainability standards for bio fuels and biomass, including the accounting of indirect land use change impacts.

110

Alongside direct support for renewable energy sources, complex licensing procedures and bureaucratic hurdles for renewable energy should be removed and European governments and authorities should secure simple and transparent authorisation procedures. At the same time, the access to infrastructure should be facilitated and priority grid connection and access to the electricity network should be guaranteed for renewable power. In addition, awareness-raising and training for local and regional authorities, spatial planners, architects and installers, and for the public, are important for the successful uptake of renewable energy sources. Set energy efficiency standards for vehicles, consumer appliances, buildings and power production A large part of energy savings can be achieved through efficiency standards for vehicles, consumer products and buildings. However, current EU legislation in this field represents and incoherent patchwork of measures, which does not add up to a clear and consistent division of responsibility and fails to deliver on the EU’s energy savings potential. Efforts should be stepped up in each area.

With regard to vehicles, the EU should regulate for an average of 125 g CO2/km for light commercial vehicles by 2020, and lower the CO2 reduction target for passenger cars to 80 g CO2/km by 2020.

5. Ensure that the transition is financed Allocate EU Cohesion and Structural Funds to a clean energy future Ambitious emission reductions in the EU are technically and economically feasible, and can even deliver significant net benefits for the European energy economy. However, before the Energy [R]evolution starts paying off, major investments are required. In particular for the EU member states with an economy in transition, in particular in Central and Eastern Europe, it can be difficult to mobilise the required private and public investments. In the revision of the EU budget, including EU Cohesion and Structural Funds, decision-makers should therefore ensure funds are allocated to energy system modernisation, energy infrastructure and energy efficiency technology. Support innovation and research in energy saving technologies and renewable energy Innovation will play an important role in making the Energy [R]evolution more attractive. Direct public support is often necessary to speed up the deployment of new technologies. The European Union, national governments, as well as public finance institutions should prioritise investments in research and development for more efficient appliances and building techniques, new types of renewable energy production such as tidal and wave power, smart grid technology, as well as low emitting transport options. These include the development of better batteries for electric vehicles, freight transport management programmes and ‘tele-working’.

Alongside support to facilitate the maturing or existing renewable energy and efficiency technologies, research and innovation are required also for truly sustainable technologies for the aviation and shipping sectors, as well as heavy road-transport. While substantial efficiency improvements and a shift from air- and road-based transportation to shipping and trains can help reduce the impact of transportation, the availability of sustainable renewable energy technologies is currently limited. Innovations, such as second generation sails or hydrogen, could become part of the solution.

111

TARGETS AND INCENTIVES FOR RENEWABLES

At the same time, national Energy Efficiency Funds should be established to pool funding streams from different sources for energy saving measures, leverage maximum amounts of private finance, aggregate projects to make them more attractive to developers, and promote technical assistance to suppliers and customers.

11 climate & energy policy |

The upcoming Energy Efficiency Directive should introduce Energy Saving Obligations that make an explicit contribution to the delivery of the 20% target. Also, buildings owned by public bodies should be renovated annually at a rate of at least 3%.

image A WOMAN IN FRONT OF HER FLOODED HOUSE IN SATJELLIA ISLAND. DUE TO THE REMOTENESS OF THE SUNDARBANS ISLANDS, SOLAR PANELS ARE USED BY MANY VILLAGERS. AS A HIGH TIDE INVADES THE ISLAND, PEOPLE REMAIN ISOLATED SURROUNDED BY THE FLOODS.

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

glossary & appendix DEFINITIONS OF SECTORS

because we use such inefficient lighting, 80 coal fired power plants are running day and night to produce the energy that is wasted.

112

GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

image COAL FIRED POWER PLANT.

GLOBAL

12.1 glossary of commonly used terms and abbreviations CHP CO2 GDP PPP

image A PRAWN SEED FARM ON MAINLAND INDIA’S SUNDARBANS COAST LIES FLOODED AFTER CYCLONE AILA. INUNDATING AND DESTROYING NEARBY ROADS AND HOUSES WITH SALT WATER.

12.2 definition of sectors

IEA

Combined Heat and Power Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas Gross Domestic Product (means of assessing a country’s wealth) Purchasing Power Parity (adjustment to GDP assessment to reflect comparable standard of living) International Energy Agency

J kJ MJ GJ PJ EJ

Joule, a measure of energy: = 1,000 Joules, = 1 million Joules, = 1 billion Joules, = 1015 Joules, = 1018 Joules

The definition of different sectors below is the same as the sectoral breakdown in the IEA World Energy Outlook series. All definitions below are from the IEA Key World Energy Statistics

Industry sector: Consumption in the industry sector includes the following subsectors (energy used for transport by industry is not included -> see under “Transport”) • Iron and steel industry • Chemical industry • Non-metallic mineral products e.g. glass, ceramic, cement etc. • Transport equipment • Machinery

W kW MW GW

Watt, measure of electrical capacity: = 1,000 watts, = 1 million watts, = 1 billion watts

• Mining • Food and tobacco • Paper, pulp and print • Wood and wood products (other than pulp and paper)

kWh Kilowatt-hour, measure of electrical output: TWh = 1012 watt-hours t/Gt Tonnes, measure of weight: Gt = 1 billion tonnes

• Construction

FUEL MJ/t

1 cubic 1 barrel

MJ/t GJ/barrel

1 US gallon 1 UK gallon

kJ/m3

0.0283 m3 159 liter 3.785 liter 4.546 liter

table 12.2: conversion factors - different energy units FROM

TJ Gcal Mtoe Mbtu GWh

TO: TJ MULTIPLY BY

Gcal

Mtoe

238.8

2.388 x 10-5

947.8

0.2778

4.1868 x 10-3

10(-7)

3.968

1.163 x 10-3

4.1868 x 104

Mbtu

107

3968 x 107

11630

0.252

-8

2.931 x 10-4

3.6

860

8.6 x 10-5

3412

2.52 x 10

Non-energy use: Covers use of other petroleum products such as paraffin waxes, lubricants, bitumen etc.

GWh

-3

1.0551 x 10

Other sectors: ‘Other sectors’ covers agriculture, forestry, fishing, residential, commercial and public services.

113

GLOSSARY

23.03 8.45 6.12 38000.00

glossary & appendix |

Transport sector: The Transport sector includes all fuels from transport such as road, railway, domestic aviation and domestic navigation. Fuel used for ocean, costal and inland fishing is included in “Other Sectors”.

table 12.1: conversion factors - fossil fuels Coal Lignite Oil Gas

• Textile and Leather

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

hungary: reference scenario table 12.3: hungary: electricity generation 2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

35.5 1.2 6.0 11.2 0.5 0.0 14.7 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

39 0.3 6.0 14.5 0.5 0.0 14.7 1.4 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

42 0.1 4.5 19.3 0.4 0.0 14.7 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0

58 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.3 0.0 29.4 2.1 0.3 1.8 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0

61 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.3 0.0 14.7 3.7 0.3 2.8 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0

74 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.2 0.0 14.7 5.0 0.3 3.8 1.5 2.6 0.0 0.0

4.4 0.5 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.3 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

7.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

8.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0

8.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0

8.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0

4 0

5 0

7 1

8 1

Total generation Fossil Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Hydrogen Renewables Hydro Wind PV Biomass Geothermal Solar thermal Ocean energy

39.9 23.4 1.6 6.0 15.1 0.6 0.0 14.7 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

44.3 25.8 0.5 6.0 18.8 0.5 0.0 14.7 0.0 3.8 0.2 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

49.0 28.8 0.1 4.5 23.9 0.4 0.0 14.7 0.0 5.4 0.3 1.5 0.1 3.2 0.4 0.0 0.0

66.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.3 0.0 29.4 0.0 9.5 0.3 1.8 0.7 5.6 1.2 0.0 0.0

70.0 41.3 0.0 0.0 41.0 0.3 0.0 14.7 0.0 14.0 0.3 2.8 1.1 8.0 1.8 0.0 0.0

82.8 50.5 0.0 0.0 50.2 0.2 0.0 14.7 0.0 17.7 0.3 3.8 1.5 9.5 2.6 0.0 0.0

Distribution losses Own consumption electricity Electricity for hydrogen production Final energy consumption (electricity)

4.0 2.3 0.0 37.6

4.1 2.0 0.0 42.3

4.2 1.8 0.0 46.5

4.3 2.0 0.0 54.9

4.7 2.2 0.0 65.7

5.7 2.4 0.0 77.9

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean) Share of fluctuating RES

0.1 0.3%

1.3 3.0%

1.6 3.3%

2.5 3.8%

3.9 5.6%

5.4 6.5%

RES share

4.5%

8.6%

11.1%

14.5%

20.0%

21.3%

Power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil Biomass Geothermal Hydrogen CHP by producer Main activity producers Autoproducers

table 12.6: hungary: installed capacity

2007

TWh/a

table 12.4: hungary: heat supply

glossary & appendix | APPENDIX - HUNGARY

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

District heating plants Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal

10.8 10.5 0 0 0

25.7 25.0 0 0 0

15.7 15.3 0 0 0

9.0 8.8 0 0 0

6.5 6.3 0 0 0

6.8 6.6 0 0 0

Heat from CHP Fossil fuels Biomass Geothermal Fuel cell (hydrogen)

46.7 46.5 0.2 0 0

31.5 27.3 4.2 0 0

34.1 23.2 10.8 0 0

33.8 21.8 12.1 0 0

32.8 18.8 14.0 0 0

29.4 16.3 13.1 0 0

Direct heating1) Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal2)

294 263 27 0 3

331 291 33 1 6

322 264 46 6 7

312 248 46 8 9

320 248 48 10 14

325 246 51 11 17

Total heat supply1) Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal2) Fuel cell ((hydrogen)

351 320 28 0 3 0

388 344 38 1 6 0

372 302 57 6 7 0

355 279 58 8 10 0

359 274 63 10 14 0

362 269 64 11 17 0

8.9%

11.5%

18.8%

21.4%

23.9%

25.6%

PJ/a

RES share (including RES electricity) 1) including cooling. 2) including heat pumps

table 12.5: hungary: co 2 emissions 2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Condensation power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel

13 1.2 6.3 5.5 0.4 0.0

13 0.3 6.1 6.6 0.4 0.0

13 0.1 4.4 8.5 0.3 0.0

9 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.2 0.0

14 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.2 0.0

17 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.2 0.0

Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil

4.3 0.9 0.0 3.4 0.0

2.8 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.0

2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0

2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0

1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0

CO2 emissions power generation (incl. CHP public) Coal Lignite Gas Oil & diesel

17.8 2.2 6.3 8.9 0.5

16.2 0.5 6.1 9.2 0.4

15.7 0.1 4.4 10.9 0.3

11.7 0.01 0.00 11.4 0.3

16.5 0.01 0.00 16.3 0.2

18.6 0.00 0.00 18.4 0.2

CO2 emissions by sector % of 1990 emissions Industry Other sectors Transport Power generation (incl. CHP public) Other conversion

57.8 80% 5 13 13 18 9

58 79% 5 14 14 16 9

54 75% 4 13 14 16 7

46 63% 4 12 12 12 6

50 69% 4 12 11 16 7

52 71% 4 12 11 18 7

Population (Mill.) CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

10.0 5.8

9.9 5.8

9.8 5.6

9.5 4.8

9.2 5.4

8.9 5.8

MILL t/a

114

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy

8.5 0.6 1.0 4.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.6 0.2 1.0 5.8 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.7 0.1 0.7 6.2 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

13.9 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.2 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0

18.1 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.7 0.1 1.8 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

18.6 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.1 0.0 2.1 1.0 0.1 2.4 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0

Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil Biomass Geothermal Hydrogen

1.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0

1.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

1.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

1.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

CHP by producer Main activity producers Autoproducers

0.9 0.1

1.1 0.1

1.4 0.1

1.6 0.1

1.7 0.1

1.8 0.2

Total generation Fossil Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Hydrogen Renewables Hydro Wind PV Biomass Geothermal Solar thermal Ocean energy

9.5 6.9 0.7 1.0 4.9 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.8 8.3 0.2 1.0 6.8 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

12.2 8.3 0.1 0.7 7.3 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0

15.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.1 0.1 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0

19.9 13.1 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.7 0.1 1.8 1.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0

20.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 6.2 0.1 2.4 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean) Share of fluctuating RES

0 0.7%

1 7.2%

1 8.5%

2 11.2%

3 13.8%

4 18.5%

RES share

5.1%

11.6%

14.6%

19.9%

23.5%

30.1%

table 12.7: hungary: primary energy demand PJ/a

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total Fossil Hard coal Lignite Natural gas Crude oil

1,125 913 83 64 448 318

1,167 919 48 62 503 306

1,186 884 34 45 491 315

1,297 784 29 0 477 278

1,241 849 27 0 563 259

1,288 870 27 0 599 245

Nuclear Renewables Hydro Wind Solar Biomass Geothermal Ocean Energy RES share

160 52 1 0 0 48 3 0 5.2%

160 88 1 5 1 76 6 0 7.9%

160 141 1 6 6 114 15 0 12.1%

321 192 1 6 11 146 28 0 15.3%

160 231 1 10 14 171 36 0 18.3%

160 258 1 14 17 183 44 0 19.5%

table 12.8: hungary: final energy demand PJ/a

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total (incl. non-energy use) Total (energy use) Transport Oil products Natural gas Biofuels Electricity RES electricity Hydrogen RES share Transport

808 712 192 186 0 1 4 0 0 0.7%

865 774 210 194 0 10 5 0 0 5.2%

877 789 230 201 0 22 7 1 0 10.1%

864 779 235 167 1 35 32 5 0 16.7%

897 814 238 159 1 37 41 8 0 19.0%

938 857 240 153 1 41 46 10 0 21.3%

Industry Electricity RES electricity District heat RES district heat Coal Oil products Gas Solar Biomass and waste Geothermal Hydrogen RES share Industry

135 39 2 22 0 8 8 53 0 5 0 0 5.0%

141 41 4 21 2 10 4 58 0 8 0 0 9.2%

137 44 5 18 4 8 3 54 0 9 0 0 13.4%

135 44 6 16 5 7 3 55 0 10 0 0 15.6%

137 48 10 15 6 6 2 55 0 10 0 0 18.5%

141 54 12 14 5 5 2 55 0 10 0 0 19.3%

Other Sectors Electricity RES electricity District heat RES district heat Coal Oil products Gas Solar Biomass and waste Geothermal RES share Other Sectors

385 92 4 35 0 6 16 206 0 27 3 8.9%

423 105 9 34 3 3 13 232 1 31 5 11.4%

421 116 13 29 7 1 16 204 6 43 6 17.8%

409 121 18 24 7 0 16 188 8 43 8 20.5%

439 147 29 22 8 0 17 186 10 46 12 23.8%

476 181 39 20 8 1 17 183 11 48 15 25.3%

Total RES RES share

42 6.0%

72 9.3%

116 14.8%

144 18.5%

175 21.5%

199 23.2%

96 80 16 0

91 75 15 0

88 73 15 0

85 71 15 0

83 69 14 0

80 67 14 0

Non energy use Oil Gas Coal

hungary: energy [r]evolution scenario table 12.9: hungary: electricity generation

table 12.12: hungary: installed capacity

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

35.5 1.2 6.0 11.2 0.5 0.0 14.7 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

39.0 0.3 6.0 17.0 0.5 0.0 11.0 2.7 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

38.1 0.1 4.0 18.1 0.4 0.0 7.0 4.7 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0

36.4 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.3 5.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0

41.6 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.3 9.5 6.5 2.9 0.0 0.0

50.8 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.3 14.0 9.0 6.0 0.0 0.0

Power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy

8.5 0.6 1.0 4.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.3 0.2 1.0 6.8 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.9 0.1 0.6 6.7 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0

14.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 3.1 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0

19.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 5.9 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.0

24.8 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 8.8 8.2 1.2 0.0 0.0

4.4 0.5 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.4 0.1 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0

8.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0

9.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 2.4 0.4 0.0

10.3 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.1 1.0 0.0

10.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 3.8 1.8 0.0

Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil Biomass Geothermal Hydrogen

1.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

1.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0

2.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0

2.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0

4 0

4.8 0.6

7.5 0.8

8.0 1.1

9.0 1.3

9.5 1.4

Total generation Fossil Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Hydrogen Renewables Hydro Wind PV Biomass Geothermal Solar thermal Ocean energy

39.9 23.4 1.6 6.0 15.1 0.6 0.0 14.7 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

44.4 28.5 0.4 6.0 21.5 0.5 0.0 11.0 0.0 4.9 0.2 1.0 0.2 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

46.4 29.0 0.1 4.0 24.5 0.4 0.0 7.0 0.0 10.5 0.3 2.5 0.7 6.4 0.6 0.0 0.0

45.4 28.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.3 5.0 2.5 7.2 2.4 0.0 0.0

51.9 24.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.3 9.5 6.5 7.7 3.9 0.0 0.0

61.7 21.9 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.8 0.3 14.0 9.0 8.7 7.8 0.0 0.0

CHP by producer Main activity producers Autoproducers

0.9 0.1

1.1 0.1

1.7 0.2

1.8 0.2

2.0 0.3

2.2 0.3

4.0 2.3 0.0 37.6

4.1 2.0 0.0 42.4

3.9 1.8 0.7 43.3

3.4 1.9 1.1 40.8

3.3 2.1 1.7 46.6

3.5 2.2 1.8 56.2

9.5 6.9 0.7 1.0 4.9 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

12.5 9.3 0.2 1.0 7.8 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

13.8 9.1 0.1 0.6 8.2 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.6 0.1 1.6 0.6 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

16.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.1 3.1 2.3 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0

21.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.1 5.9 5.9 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.0

27.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.1 8.8 8.2 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.0

Distribution losses Own consumption electricity Electricity for hydrogen production Final energy consumption (electricity)

Total generation Fossil Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Hydrogen Renewables Hydro Wind PV Biomass Geothermal Solar thermal Ocean energy Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean) Share of fluctuating RES

0 0.7%

0.8 6.5%

2.2 15.9%

5.4 33.1%

11.8 54.5%

16.9 62.2%

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean) Share of fluctuating RES

0.1 0.3%

1 2.7%

3 6.9%

8 16.5%

16 30.8%

23 37.3%

RES share

5.1%

12.8%

26.4%

48.5%

65.6%

74.4%

RES share ‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

4.5% 0

11.1% 0

22.6% 4

38.3% 9

53.8% 16

64.5% 24

TWh/a Power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil Biomass Geothermal Hydrogen CHP by producer Main activity producers Autoproducers

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

10.8 10.5 0 0 0

31 26 2 1 3

19 14 2 2 2

25 13 6 4 3

18 4 7 3 3

19 0 9 5 5

Heat from CHP Fossil fuels Biomass Geothermal Fuel cell (hydrogen)

46.7 46.5 0.2 0 0

32 28 3 1 0

42 33 7 2 0

33 22 7 4 0

46 27 10 9 0

48 21 11 16 0

Direct heating1) Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal2)

294 263 27 0 3

323 279 34 4 6

300 244 39 9 8

279 195 47 24 12

254 142 52 36 25

242 83 67 51 41

351 320 28 0 3 0

387 333 38 5 10 0

362 290 48 11 12 0

338 230 61 28 19 0

317 173 69 39 36 0

309 104 88 55 62 0

8.9%

13.8%

19.8%

31.9%

45.5%

66.5%

Total heat supply Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal2) Fuel cell (hydrogen) 1)

RES share (including RES electricity) ‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.) 1) including cooling. 2) including heat pumps

table 12.11: hungary: co 2 emissions 2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

13.4 1.2 6.3 5.5 0.4 0.0

14.5 0.3 6.1 7.7 0.4 0.0

12.3 0.1 3.9 8.0 0.3 0.0

9.1 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.1 0.0

6.9 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0

6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0

4.3 0.9 0.0 3.4 0.0

2.9 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0

3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0

2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0

3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

CO2 emissions power generation (incl. CHP public) Coal Lignite Gas Oil & diesel

17.8 2.2 6.3 8.9 0.5

17.4 0.4 6.1 10.5 0.4

15.7 0.1 3.9 11.4 0.3

11.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.2

9.9 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0

8.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0

CO2 emissions by sector % of 1990 emissions Industry Other sectors Transport Power generation (incl. CHP public) Other conversion

57.8 80% 5 13 13 18 9

58 80% 4 14 14 17 9

51 70% 4 12 13 15 7

39 54% 3 9 10 11 6

29 40% 2 7 6 10 4

19 26% 1 4 3 8 3

Population (Mill.) CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

10.0 5.8

10 5.9

10 5.2

10 4.1

9 3.1

9 2.1

MILL t/a Condensation power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil

PJ/a

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total Fossil Hard coal Lignite Natural gas Crude oil

1,125 913 83 64 448 318

1,156 926 43 62 517 305

1,094 833 25 40 487 281

958 685 17 0 440 228

880 517 10 0 349 158

867 365 6 0 255 104

Nuclear Renewables Hydro Wind Solar Biomass Geothermal Ocean Energy RES share ‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

160 52 1 0 0 48 3 0 5.2% 0

120 110 1 4 6 87 13 0 10.4% 22

76 184 1 9 14 135 26 0 17.4% 102

0 274 1 18 37 158 60 0 28.9% 283

0 363 1 34 63 172 93 0 41.6% 380

0 502 1 50 88 200 163 0 58.2% 447

table 12.14: hungary: final energy demand PJ/a

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total (incl. non-energy use) Total (energy use) Transport Oil products Natural gas Biofuels Electricity RES electricity Hydrogen RES share Transport

808 712 192 186 0 1 4 0 0 0.7%

860 769 210 192 0 11 7 1 0 5.4%

825 742 211 177 2 22 8 2 2 11.3%

753 676 189 140 2 30 15 6 3 19.2%

699 624 157 86 2 35 29 16 4 33.9%

679 607 139 41 2 40 52 34 5 55.1%

Industry Electricity RES electricity District heat RES district heat Coal Oil products Gas Solar Biomass and waste Geothermal Hydrogen RES share Industry

135 39 2 22 0 8 8 53 0 5 0 0 5.0%

140 41 5 24 3 7 5 55 1 8 0 0 12.1%

133 41 9 22 5 3 3 50 2 10 0 0 20.7%

127 38 15 23 9 1 1 45 4 13 2 0 33.7%

124 38 21 23 11 0 0 36 6 17 4 0 47.6%

123 41 26 22 15 0 0 19 10 20 11 0 66.9%

Other Sectors Electricity RES electricity District heat RES district heat Coal Oil products Gas Solar Biomass and waste Geothermal RES share Other Sectors

385 92 4 35 0 6 16 206 0 27 3 8.9%

420 104 12 37 5 4 14 221 3 31 5 13.3%

398 106 24 36 9 1 11 194 7 35 6 20.3%

360 94 36 34 14 0 8 155 20 41 9 33.2%

343 100 54 38 19 0 4 111 30 43 17 47.4%

344 109 71 42 29 0 1 68 41 57 26 64.9%

Total RES RES share

42 6.0%

84 11.0%

132 17.8%

199 29.4%

275 44.1%

383 63.1%

96 80 16 0

91 75 15 0

84 69 14 0

77 64 13 0

75 62 13 0

72 60 12 0

Non energy use Oil Gas Coal

115

APPENDIX - HUNGARY

2007

District heating plants Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal

PJ/a

table 12.13: hungary: primary energy demand

glossary & appendix |

table 12.10: hungary: heat supply

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

hungary: advanced energy [r]evolution scenario table 12.15: hungary: electricity generation 2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

35.5 1.2 6.0 11.2 0.5 0.0 14.7 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

39.0 0.3 6.0 16.4 0.5 0.0 11.0 2.7 0.2 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

38.2 0.1 4.0 15.2 0.4 0.0 7.0 4.8 0.3 3.9 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

34.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.3 7.3 5.5 4.0 0.0 0.0

37.7 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.3 9.5 8.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

50.4 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.3 15.5 11.4 6.4 0.0 0.0

Power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy

8.5 0.6 1.0 4.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.5 0.2 1.0 6.5 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

13.1 0.1 0.6 5.6 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 2.4 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0

17.4 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 4.6 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

21.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 5.9 7.3 0.9 0.0 0.0

29.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 9.7 10.4 1.6 0.0 0.0

4.4 0.5 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.4 0.1 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0

8.3 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0

9.1 0.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.0

10.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 1.3 0.0

10.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.8 3.1 0.1

Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil Biomass Geothermal Hydrogen

1.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

1.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

2.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0

2.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0

2.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0

4 0

4.8 0.6

7.5 0.8

8.0 1.1

9.0 1.3

9.5 1.4

Total generation Fossil Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Hydrogen Renewables Hydro Wind PV Biomass Geothermal Solar thermal Ocean energy

39.9 23.4 1.6 6.0 15.1 0.6 0.0 14.7 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

44.4 27.9 0.4 6.0 20.9 0.5 0.0 11.0 0.0 5.5 0.2 1.3 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

46.5 26.1 0.1 4.0 21.6 0.4 0.0 7.0 0.0 13.4 0.3 3.9 2.0 6.4 0.9 0.0 0.0

43.0 18.5 0.1 0.0 18.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.3 7.3 5.5 7.0 4.5 0.0 0.0

48.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.3 9.5 8.0 9.3 4.3 0.0 0.0

61.3 13.4 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 47.8 0.3 15.5 11.4 11.0 9.5 0.0 0.0

CHP by producer Main activity producers Autoproducers

0.9 0.1

1.1 0.1

1.7 0.2

1.9 0.3

4.0 2.3 0.0 37.6

4.1 2.0 0.0 42.4

3.9 1.8 0.7 43.4

3.4 1.9 1.0 46.5

3.3 2.0 2.9 51.7

3.5 1.9 5.8 63.9

9.5 6.9 0.7 1.0 4.9 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

12.7 9.1 0.2 1.0 7.6 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

14.9 8.1 0.1 0.6 7.1 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.8 0.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

19.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.1 4.6 5.0 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0

24.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.1 5.9 7.3 2.1 1.2 0.0 0.0

31.6 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.1 9.7 10.4 2.7 2.2 0.0 0.0

Distribution losses Own consumption electricity Electricity for hydrogen production Final energy consumption (electricity)

Total generation Fossil Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Nuclear Hydrogen Renewables Hydro Wind PV Biomass Geothermal Solar thermal Ocean energy Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean) Share of fluctuating RES

0 0.7%

1 10.0%

4 28.5%

10 49.3%

13 55.1%

20 63.5%

Fluctuating RES (PV, Wind, Ocean) Share of fluctuating RES

0.1 0.3%

2 4.1%

6 12.7%

13 29.7%

18 36.4%

27 43.9%

RES share

5.1%

16.2%

39.2%

63.5%

69.4%

79.3%

RES share ‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

4.5% 0

12.5% 0

28.8% 4

57.1% 9

65.3% 16

77.9% 23

table 12.18: hungary: installed capacity

2007

TWh/a

glossary & appendix |

table 12.16: hungary: heat supply

APPENDIX - HUNGARY

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

District heating plants Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal

10.8 10.5 0 0 0

31 26 2 1 3

18 13 2 2 2

17 9 4 3 2

22 6 9 4 3

18 0 7 5 5

Heat from CHP Fossil fuels Biomass Geothermal Fuel cell (hydrogen)

46.7 46.5 0.2 0 0

32 28 3 1 0

42 33 7 2 0

40 24 12 4 0

45 17 16 12 0

51 4 20 27 0

Direct heating1) Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal2)

294 263 27 0 3

323 279 34 4 6 0

294 238 38 9 8 0

273 169 46 38 19 0

243 106 57 51 28 1

222 16 64 69 73 5

Total heat supply1) Fossil fuels Biomass Solar collectors Geothermal2) Fuel cell (hydrogen)

351 320 28 0 3 0

387 333 38 5 10 0

354 285 47 11 12 0

330 202 62 41 25 0

311 129 83 56 43 1

296 20 91 74 106 5

8.9%

13.8%

19.7%

38.8%

58.5%

93.0%

PJ/a

RES share (including RES electricity) ‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.) 1) including cooling. 2) including heat pumps

table 12.17: hungary: co 2 emissions 2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

13.4 1.2 6.3 5.5 0.4 0.0

14.2 0.3 6.1 7.5 0.4 0.0

11.0 0.1 3.9 6.7 0.3 0.0

5.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.1 0.0

4.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0

4.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0

4.3 0.9 0.0 3.4 0.0

2.9 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0

3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0

2.7 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.0

1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0

0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

CO2 emissions power generation (incl. CHP public) Coal Lignite Gas Oil & diesel

17.8 2.2 6.3 8.9 0.5

17.1 0.4 6.1 10.2 0.4

14.5 0.1 3.9 10.1 0.3

8.2 0.1 0.0 8.0 0.2

6.8 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0

4.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0

CO2 emissions by sector % of 1990 emissions Industry Other sectors Transport Power generation (incl. CHP public) Other conversion Population (Mill.) CO2 emissions per capita (t/capita)

57.8 80% 5 13 13 18 9 10.0 5.8

57.6 79% 4.2 13.9 13.8 16.9 8.8 9.9 5.8

49.5 68% 3.6 12.1 12.8 14.2 6.8 9.8 5.1

33.3 46% 2.6 9.2 9.0 7.9 4.6 9.5 3.5

21.5 30% 1.7 5.7 4.5 6.6 3.1 9.2 2.3

9.0 12% 0.4 1.0 1.4 4.9 1.3 8.9 1.0

MILL t/a Condensation power plants Coal Lignite Gas Oil Diesel Combined heat & power production Coal Lignite Gas Oil

116

table 12.19: hungary: primary energy demand PJ/a

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total Fossil Hard coal Lignite Natural gas Crude oil

1,125 913 83 64 448 318

1 154 921 43 62 512 304

1 085 811 25 40 460 287

914 584 22 0 329 233

807 404 14 0 251 139

796 211 6 0 123 82

Nuclear Renewables Hydro Wind Solar Biomass Geothermal Ocean Energy RES share ‘Efficiency’ savings (compared to Ref.)

160 52 1 0 0 48 3 0 5.2% 0

120 114 1 5 7 87 14 0 10.6% 23

76 197 1 14 18 134 31 0 18.8% 111

0 330 1 26 60 142 100 0 37.8% 294

0 403 1 34 84 176 108 0 52.0% 414

0 584 1 56 115 178 234 0 74.7% 474

table 12.20: hungary: final energy demand PJ/a

2007

2015

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total (incl. non-energy use) Total (energy use) Transport Oil products Natural gas Biofuels Electricity RES electricity Hydrogen RES share Transport

808 712 192 186 0 1 4 0 0 0.7%

860 769 210 192 0 11 7 1 0 5.5%

825 741 211 177 2 22 9 3 2 11.7%

748 671 183 124 2 20 35 20 3 22.6%

679 604 136 61 1 21 47 31 6 40.9%

646 573 117 20 0 11 76 59 10 66.6%

Industry Electricity RES electricity District heat RES district heat Coal Oil products Gas Solar Biomass and waste Geothermal Hydrogen RES share Industry

135 39 2 22 0 8 8 53 0 5 0 0 5.0%

140 41 5 24 3 7 5 55 1 8 0 0 12.5%

133 41 12 22 5 3 3 50 2 10 0 0 22.7%

127 38 22 23 10 2 1 37 6 14 7 0 45.5%

124 39 26 23 15 1 0 24 8 16 11 1 62.1%

121 42 32 22 21 0 0 6 13 17 15 6 85.5%

Other Sectors Electricity RES electricity District heat RES district heat Coal Oil products Gas Solar Biomass and waste Geothermal RES share Other Sectors

385 92 4 35 0 6 16 206 0 27 3 8.9%

420 104 13 37 5 4 14 222 3 31 5 13.7%

398 106 31 35 8 1 17 191 7 34 6 21.6%

361 95 54 33 14 3 28 121 32 39 10 41.4%

343 100 65 42 28 3 11 82 43 50 13 57.9%

335 111 87 44 42 0 1 16 56 57 50 86.8%

Total RES RES share

42 6.0%

87 11.3%

141 19.0%

249 37.0%

332 55.0%

473 82.4%

96 80 16 0

91 75 15 0

84 69 14 0

77 64 13 0

75 62 13 0

72 60 12 0

Non energy use Oil Gas Coal

hungary: total new investment by technology table 12.21: hungary: total investment MILLION $

2011-2020

2021-2030

2011-2050

2011-2050 AVERAGE PER YEAR

7,263 2,664 1,455 0 576 136 497 0 0

13,451 3,241 1,371 51 521 627 672 0 0

25,926 14,744 6,702 51 3,172 1,720 3,099 0 0

648 369 168 1 79 43 77 0 0

2,599 5,817 2,352 0 1,117 1,159 1,189 0 0

661 7,877 1,945 76 1,745 1,895 2,216 0 0

6,226 37,241 7,833 76 10,387 8,662 10,282 0 0

156 931 196 2 260 217 257 0 0

2,305 9,443 2,538 0 1,926 3,318 1,661 0 0

449 11,588 1,129 51 2,173 3,585 4,650 0 0

6,756 51,840 9,907 51 12,445 13,912 15,525 0 0

169 1,296 248 1 311 348 388 0 0

Reference scenario Conventional (fossil & nuclear) Renewables Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy Energy [R]evolution Conventional (fossil & nuclear) Renewables Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy Advanced Energy [R]evolution Conventional (fossil & nuclear) Renewables Biomass Hydro Wind PV Geothermal Solar thermal power plants Ocean energy

hungary: future employment

TECHNOLOGY AND POWER STATION

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

CAPACITY

GENERATION

LOCAL FACTORS Individual power station

O&M

FUEL

GWH

JOBS/MW

2,650

Lignite/Biomass Mátrai Oroszlányi Tiszapalkonyai and Borsodi Ajkai Erőmű

2,200 600 280 330

260 1900 n.i. n.i.

836 240 337 102

Gas and Oil Dunamenti Tisza II. Csepeli Kelenföldi, Kispesti, and Újpesti Lőrinci, Litéri, and Sajószögedi Debreceni

410 180 55 380 55 17

n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i.

1,736 900 396 409 410 95

0.24 0.20 0.14 0.93 0.13 0.18

Small Gas CHP ISD Power Pannon

210 260

n.i. n.i.

69 132.5

3.04 1.96

1895

JOB YEARS/MW

1.40

2.25 5,614 1,421

2.63 2.50 0.83 3.24

JOB YEARS/GWh

0.31

0.05 1.34

0.28

2.33

n.i = no information Information on Hungarian power station employment from Aniko Pogany (personal communication, August 2nd 2011).

117

APPENDIX - HUNGARY

Nuclear Paksi Atomerőmű

JOBS/GWh

Weighted average

glossary & appendix |

table 12.22: employment by power station and calculation of local factors

WORLD ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OUTLOOK

notes

12 glossary & appendix | NOTES - HUNGARY

118

12 glossary & appendix | NOTES - HUNGARY

119

y g re n e

noitulove]r[

Greenpeace has been campaigning against environmental degradation since 1971 when a small boat of volunteers and journalists sailed into Amchitka, an area west of Alaska, where the US Government was conducting underground nuclear tests. This tradition of ‘bearing witness’ in a non-violent manner continues today, and ships are an important part of all its campaign work. greenpeace hungary Zászlós utca 54. 1143 Budapest t +36 1 392 7663 f +36 1 200 8484 info@greenpeace.hu http://greenpeace.hu/

european renewable energy council - [EREC] Created in April 2000, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) is the umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations active in the sectors of bioenergy, geothermal, ocean, small hydro power, solar electricity, solar thermal and wind energy. EREC thus represents the European renewable energy industry with an annual turnover of €70 billion and employing 550,000 people. EREC is composed of the following non-profit associations and federations: AEBIOM (European Biomass Association); EGEC (European Geothermal Energy Council); EPIA (European Photovoltaic Industry Association); ESHA (European Small Hydro power Association); ESTIF (European Solar Thermal Industry Federation); EUBIA (European Biomass Industry Association); EWEA (European Wind Energy Association); EUREC Agency (European Association of Renewable Energy Research Centers); EREF (European Renewable Energies Federation); EU-OEA (European Ocean Energy Association); ESTELA (European Solar Thermal Electricity Association). EREC European Renewable Energy Council Renewable Energy House, 63-67 rue d’Arlon B-1040 Brussels, Belgium t +32 2 546 1933 f+32 2 546 1934 erec@erec.org www.erec.org

Greenpeace is a global organisation that uses non-violent direct action to tackle the most crucial threats to our planet’s biodiversity and environment. Greenpeace is a non-profit organisation, present in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. It speaks for 2.8 million supporters worldwide, and inspires many millions more to take action every day. To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments or corporations but relies on contributions from individual supporters and foundation grants.

image ICE MELTING ON AN ICEBERG ON THE GREENLANDIC COAST. GREENPEACE AND AN INDEPENDENT NASA-FUNDED SCIENTIST COMPLETED MEASUREMENTS OF MELT LAKES ON THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET THAT SHOW ITS VULNERABILITY TO WARMING TEMPERATURES. front cover images © JAKATICS/DREAMSTIME, © SOLYMOSI TAMÁS/ISTOCK